survey

The Public Land Survey in Minnesota

Materials covered here comprise three types,

(a)    copies of all of my papers that have been published in Dis-closures and its successor magazine, Minnesota
        Surveyor, the official publication of the Minnesota Society of Professional Surveyors
(b)    references and links to those material concerning the public land survey in Minnesota currently in the collections of
        the Minnesota Historical Society and accessible through PALS, an electronic catalog
(c)    links to internet sites useful in describing the survey in Minnesota

Papers published in Dis-closures and Minnesota Surveyor

The Annual Reports of The Surveyors General

There is, as has been pointed out in many previous issues of Dis-closures, a wealth of material describing how the federal government subdivided the lands that it acquired from foreign nations preparatory to conveying title to states, corporations, and individuals. Numerous laws and instructions, volumes of correspondence, and thousands of maps document this initial phase of the land alienation process. Surprisingly, however, there are few contemporaneous descriptions of how the survey spread across certain areas. Here, I mention one source of such descriptions that, together with the maps produced by Robert Sales and Ron Olson in 1973 (see Dis-closures, February 1978, 8) and William Trygg (Trygg, 1964), provide the basis for some of my work on the historical geography of the public land survey in Minnesota.

The surveyor general of each statutorily defined surveying district was required to submit an annual report to his superior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The Commissioner forwarded all of these reports, and a report of his own, to his superior, until 1849, the Secretary of the Treasury, after 1849, the Secretary of the Interior. These annual reports describe the progress of the fieldwork of the deputy surveyors, including firsthand commentaries from the deputies themselves of the areas that they surveyed. Often they included a map. The reports also describe the administration of the survey, including details about the contracts between the surveyors general and the deputy surveyors working in the field. These annual reports have been used by Swisher (1937) in Iowa and by Grim (1987) in Kansas and Nebraska.

In each report the surveyor general summarized and justified what surveys had been completed in his district during the previous year and recommended what surveys should be made in the year to come, attempting to make the case for Congressional appropriations. Often, he explained why the surveys that Congress had authorized to be carried out during the year had not been completed. Part of his report might focus on the difficulties faced by deputy surveyors throughout the surveying district during the field season or the difficulties faced by one particular surveyor because of special problems in a part of the district. Clearly, the surveyor general attempted to educate Congress about the practice of surveying and the country in which the deputy surveyors worked. He had several objectives. He attempted to justify the areas he was recommending for survey during the following year, and hence the money he was requesting. He emphasized incessantly his needs, that Congress modify the survey administration and survey methods, increase the amount of money appropriated for his surveying district, and increase the number of staff he was allowed to employ.

In his report, the Commissioner of the General Land Office not only commented on the reports of the various surveyors general but placed them, and the national survey effort that they described, into a broader perspective. Firstly, he related them to the entire operation of the General Land Office for the previous year, the whole process of subdividing and selling a continent. Secondly, he related them to any other national endeavor he thought had a bearing on the work of General Land Office. The reports by the surveyors general, individuals who were in touch with the deputy surveyors in the field, provided him with one source of information enabling him to recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury changes in the land alienation process. In some instances, such recommendations had repercussions for the public land survey, either on the methods employed by the deputy surveyors in the field, requiring additional monumentation and lines for example, or on the progress of the survey, since he recommended to Congress which areas should be surveyed in the coming year.

The annual reports of the surveyors general and the Commissioner of the General Land Office provided a basis for continuing federal efforts to modify the land alienation process as a whole including the public land survey. By amending existing land laws and changing the amount of monies appropriated for particular activities Congress controlled what areas were surveyed and how the survey was carried (Figure 1). As Malcolm Rohrbough wrote,

The whole process (of surveying) began with an estimate of expenses from a surveyor general to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Such an estimate would detail the surveying plans for the coming year, the number of miles, the location of the proposed surveys, and the total cost. The Commissioner of the General Land Office would ... send the recommendation to the Secretary of the Treasury. Once approved by the Secretary, the Treasury Department sent the request on to Congress as part of the funds necessary to operate the federal government during the coming year. Within the annual appropriations act specific sum would be designated for the survey of the public lands. With the money appropriated, each surveyor general contracted with the deputy for the tracts to be surveyed at the price specified by the government. (Rohrbough, 1968, 74).

Like earlier annual reports and the annual reports from other surveying districts, the annual reports of the surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa, directing the survey west of the St Croix and Mississippi rivers until Minnesota Territory was created a separate surveying district in 1857, provide insight into the progress and methods of the survey. They describe how, where, and when the federal government initiated the process of conveying title to land, by subdividing the land into rectangles. They also describe the framework in which states, corporations, and individuals made decisions about where and how to acquire land from the federal government. In many cases the annual reports describe the origins of settlement in an area. The prospective settler could only acquire land after it had been surveyed and information collected by the deputy surveyor made available for inspection at the land district office, and after it was offered at public auction.

The reports, of course, span a geographical spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, they document the annual progress and cost of survey in one surveying district inviting comparisons between the progress in different districts. At the other end of the spectrum, they give appropriate emphasis to the survey as merely one of the responsibilities of the General Land Office, which, in turn, was merely one of the federal agencies involved in exploring, describing, and settling a continent.

Bibliography.

Grim, Ronald E. "Mapping Kansas and Nebraska, the role of the General Land Office", in Luebke, Frederick C., Frances W. Kaye, and Gary E. Moulton (eds) Mapping the North American Plains: essays in the history of cartography. (Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 1987) pp 127-143.

Rohrbough, Malcolm J. The Land Office Business, the settlement and administration of American public lands, 1789-1837 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1968).

Swishur, Jacob A. "Township surveys in Iowa". Iowa Journal of History and Politics vol.35 (9137) 3-21.

Trygg, J. William. Composite map of the United States land surveyor's original plats and field notes. Ely, Minnesota. 1964.

Appendix

The annual reports of the surveyors general, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Interior are contained in a multivolume set of Congressional publications, the Serial Set.

Access to these materials is by subject and date through a multivolumed index set published by the Congressional Information Services, a private company. The federal government has published several indexes, although their completeness should be questioned. One that I have used extensively is, Checklist of United States Public Documents. Volume 1. List of Congressional and Departmental Publications, compiled under the direction of the Superintendent of Documents (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1911). Reprinted by J.W.Edwards Publishers Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan 1953.

Some of the annual reports have been reprinted in the New American State Papers, a 52-volume set. Published by Scholarly Resources Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, the annual reports of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, are included in the first of 8 volumes devoted to materials concerning Public Lands. This volume also contains an excellent summary of the land alienation process by Margaret Beattie Bogue.

The annual reports after 1857 complement the unpublished Surveyor General of Minnesota records noted in the last Dis-closures (Summer, 1991 p20). A complete description of these unpublished records can be found in Gregory Kinney and Lydia Lucas A Guide to the Records of Minnesota Public Lands published by the Minnesota Historical Society in 1985 pages 47-57.

Sources for the History of the Public Land Survey: A Checklist of Federal Government Documents

Introduction

Throughout the nineteenth century land dominated the domestic affairs of the nation. Governments and countless corporations and individuals were linked in a land alienation process, characterized as a "vast grab bag". Books, journals, pamphlets, and maps published by the federal government, much of it stored on microfilm and microfiche and also electronically, record this process. Virtually all of the scholarly books and articles describing why, how, and when the federal government subdivided various parts of the continent and conveyed title to individuals, corporations, and states have relied on the information contained in these government publications.

Access to much of the information is difficult, however. In major university and public libraries across the nation, federal publications comprise part of the Federal Depository Library System. In some of these libraries, the materials are shelved with the general collections and so are accessible through the general reference tools of the library. In other libraries, the Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota for example, the materials are kept as a special collection with special access tools. Without going into detail about the content of the individual documents, I review some the publications of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government during the nineteenth century that can be used to describe the subdivision and alienation of a continent. For the surveyor interested in the historical aspects of the profession, these public documents are invaluable.

The Congress, through legislative action, and the President, through executive action, controlled the entire alienation process and, by establishing national goals and priorities for surveying, dictated the administration and progress of the public land survey. Virtually all of these legislative and executive actions have been published. Various federal agencies translated these goals and priorities into surveying practice and in doing so, created administrative documents, many of which have been published. These agencies reported the outcome of the national endeavor, to divide and sell land, reports on which Congress and the President based national goals and priorities. Such reports, including the maps and statistics that detail the progress of the survey, have also been published. Unfortunately, a great amount of material that would shed additional light on the national real estate conveyancing effort has not been published but remains in various archives around the country, with or without adequate indexes. With notable exceptions, the voluminous correspondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and Interior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington, the surveyors general at various locations around the country, the land officers in the district land offices and the deputy surveyors in the field describing how these individuals carried out the mandate given them by the President and the Congress is unpublished.

Finding Aids

No comprehensive index to nineteenth century federal documents exists, although most of the legislative and executive publications have been indexed, and most of the individual volumes of such publications possess an index. In addition, there are subject bibliographies and compilations of endless variety. Several checklists have been produced and I have found three useful. Benjamin Pearly Poore, A Descriptive Catalog of the Government Publications of the United States, ... , published in 1885; John G. Ames, Comprehensive Index to the Publications of the United States Government 1881 -1893. 2d. ed., published in 1905; and, the most useful of the three, Checklist of United States Public Documents, 1789-1909, compiled under the direction of the Superintendent of Documents in 1911.

Publications of Congress

A. Statutes and Compilations of Statutes.

The statutes enacted by Congress and the materials that outline the legislative history of those statutes describe why, how, and what land was surveyed and conveyed. These materials provide a frame of reference for the subsequent actions of the President and the executive agencies, such as the Treasury and Interior Departments and, consequently, the General Land Office, the surveyors general, and the deputy surveyors.

At the close of each session of Congress, the statutes enacted by Congress in that session are published in the Statutes at Large. Published since 1789, these volumes contain public and private laws and constitutional amendments. In addition to each individual volume containing a subject index, there are a number of indexes to the volumes published in the eighteen and nineteenth centuries. Synoptical Index to the Laws and Treaties of the United States, ...., covers the period 1789-1851, and was published in 1852 by Charles C. Little and James Brown. The most useful index is the one published by the Library of Congress, Index Analysis of the Federal Statutes (General and Permanent Law) ....., known as the "Scott and Beamon's Index analysis". Volume 1 was produced by G.W.Scott and M.G.Beamon in 1908 and indexes the laws published from 1789-1873. Volume 2, covering the years 1873-1907, was published in 1911. Revising the Scott and Beamon index is, Index to the Federal Statutes, 1874-1931 ..., published in 1933.

The statutes passed by Congress, and described in the Statutes at Large, are compiled into collected editions that include either all legislation passed within a given period of time or legislation dealing with a particular subject, and codes, compilations of statutes in force when the code was published and divided into broad subject areas.

The four collected editions that describe all of the statutes passed by the early Congresses are described in the Checklist of United States Public Documents, 1789-1909, pages 962-972. Many collections that describe the statutes concerning a particular subject matter are referenced in the general indexes to the statutes. Three important collections, describing the particular laws that affected the disposition of the public lands, are; Laws, Treaties, and other Documents, having operation and respect to Public Lands, ..., printed by Joseph Gales Jnr in ; Laws of the United States, Resolutions of Congress under the Confederation; Treaties, Proclamations and other Documents, having operation and respect to public lands, ..., printed by Jonathon Elliot in 1817; and Public Acts of Congress respecting the Sale and Disposition of the Public Lands with instructions isssued, from time to time, by the Secretary of the Treasury, and Commissioner of the General Land Office ..., published by Gales and Seaton in 1834 in two parts.

A code comprises a systematically arranged compilation of those statutes in force when the compilation was made. The first such code was the Revised Statutes of the United States ..., published in 1878. This compilation contained all of the public statutes that were in force in 1875. Legislation governing the public lands in general was coded in sections 2207-2490 and the public land survey in sections 2207-2233. The numerous errors in this code were "corrected" in a second Revised Statutes published in 1878. Two supplements to the Revised Statutes were published, one codifying the statutes enacted 1874-1891, and another the statutes enacted 1892-1901. A new codification effort, from which today's United States Code derives, was approved June 30 1926. Officially entitled The Code of the Laws of the United States, this publication has been revised every six years since 1926. All of the laws enacted previously, even those enacted in the eighteenth century, that are still in force are listed in the current U.S.Code published in 1988. Legislation directing the survey of public land is coded in Title 43 U.S.Code sections 751-774.

B. Legislative History.

The debate between members of Congress prior to enacting legislation are important historical documents. The chamber debates are contained in four sets of publications; Annals of Congress (1789-1824); the Register of Debates (1824-1837), the Congressional Globe (1833-1873), and the Congressional Record (1873-to date). Each volume of these publications possesses an index although the index to the Congressional Record is also printed separately. Some of the earliest Congressional debates were published by the Library of Congress (1904-1937) as Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, an index to these journals, the diaries of the early Congresses, was published in 1976 (Harris and Tilley, 1976). Many of the journals for the first 14 Congresses have been reprinted by Michael Glazier Inc. in 1977 as The Congressional Journals of the United States. The debates from 1789-1824, published in the Annals of Congress, were republished in forty two volumes by Gales and Seaton, 1834-1856 as, The debates and proceedings in the Congress of the United States ..... . Finally, between 1880 and 1883, Albert Ordway compiled and published a General Index to the Journals of Congress, covering the first sixteen Congresses (1789-1819).

In order to facilitate debate, Congress is divided into various committees, each responsible for a particular sphere of activity. Such committees and, if needed subcommittees, may hold public hearings to gather information considered relevant to the debate. Committee Hearings comprise volumes that record such information and they are important documents because they often include opinion from various experts about the current status and future direction of particular activities. Unfortunately, not all of the hearings have been published. The Checklist of United States Public Documents, 1789-1909, gives an incomplete listing of those that have been. Another incomplete listing is, Index of Congressional Committee Hearings in the Library of the United States House of Representatives, prior to January 3, 1943, compiled by Elizabeth M Schumsker and published in 1943. The subject matter and the witness lists of hearings held from 1833-1969 are indexed in Congressional Information Service Index to Committee Hearings, published 1981-1985.

Committee Prints comprise volumes containing a miscellany of information gathered by a particular committee for use during deliberations. A comprehensive index to these documents published from the mid-nineteenth century is Congressional Information Service Index to Committee Prints, published in 1980.

After debate, each House or Senate committee sends a written report of its recommendations to the respective chamber. Such a report, called either a House or a Senate Report precedes any action by the chamber, and is contained in the multivolume Serial Set. These reports are indexed in Checklist of United States Public Documents, 1789-1909, and the Congressional Information Service Index to the Serial Set Publications, published in 1975.

The 14,000 volumes that comprise the Serial Set volumes contain much more information than committee reports. First published at the end of the fifteenth Congress (1817), the volumes also contain House and Senate Documents which comprise material that Congress requires published. Originating from various government and nongovernment bodies and covering a wide spectrum of topics, these documents are key historical sources. They contain information that describe what happened after a statute was passed and provided both the Congress and the President with information on which to base subsequent legislative and executive action.

Some of the documents already mentioned were published as part of the Serial Set. The early checklists, for example Poore (1885), was published as Senate Miscellaneous Document 67, 48th Congress 2d session (Serial Set volume number 2268), and Ames(1905), as House Document 754, 58th Congress 2d session (Serial Set volume number 4744). In addition, the compilation of statutes produced by Ordway, 1880-1883, was printed as Serial Set 1939, (Serial Set volume number 2071). Collections of statutes concerning land can also be found in the Serial Set volumes. A number of catalogs of government publications of the nineteenth century, called Document Catalogs, are also contained in the Serial Set.

Most importantly, however, the Serial Set volumes include messages and reports that Congress requests from the executive branch. Thus, included in House and Senate Documents are the annual reports of various officials responsible for carrying out particular legislation. These reports, from the executive branch to the legislative branch, forms the basis for continuous debate about government business. House and Senate Documents include the annual reports of all engaged in the public land survey, the secretaries of the Treasury and Interior, the commissioners of the General Land Office, and the surveyors general (see Dis-Closures, Winter 1992, pp 14-16). Many of these reports contain maps and statistics that detail the progress of the survey and the subsequent land sales. In addition, the Serial Set contains opinions by individuals about the suitability of the land laws and the operation of the various agencies under those laws and the resolutions, memorials, and petitions from various individuals and states for Congressional action on a particular land issues.

A number of House and Senate Reports and House and Senate Documents have been reprinted as part of the New American State Papers, a 52-volume set published by Scholarly Resource Inc. in 1972. Anyone interested in land alienation in general, and the public land survey in particular, should examine Exploration and Surveys (fifteen volumes), Indian Affairs (thirtenn volumes), and Public Lands (eight volumes).

The Executive

A. The President

The President exercises executive powers through departments and agencies which, although created by Congress, he organizes, and through the powers granted to him in the Constitution and by Congress in specific legislation. In exercising these powers, he produces a variety of documents, such as messages, addresses, proclamation, and executive orders, some of which have the force and effect of statute, although far more limited in scope. Until recently, the government did not collect and publish all the papers of Presidents but a very useful, albeit incomplete, compilation of nineteenth century Presidental documents, is James D Richardson Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, published in 10 volumes from 1897-1913. This document was also printed as House Miscellaneous Document 210, 53d Congress, 2d session (Serial Set number ). Because of the powers that Congress gave the President, certain types of papers are important in the land alienation process. Numerous Presidental Proclamations and Executive Orders describing the public lands to be surveyed and sold were issued throughout the nineteenth century (Ashmore, 1981). Unfortunately, most of these cannot be found in the volumes of the Statutes at Large, but many other Proclamations dealing with a whole variety of issues are printed in those volumes. In 1941, the Works Project Administration Historical Records Survey, a massive federal government indexing effort, compiled the two volumes Presidental Executive Orders. Privately published? The most comprehensive index to all Presidential documents is Congressional Information Services Index to Presidential Executive Orders and Proclamations, published in 1986.

B. The Executive Agencies

The land alienation process, including the public land survey, ultimately depended on the activities of various executive departments given general and specific responsibilities by the Congress and the President. The surveyors general and the Commissioner of the General Land Office issued instructions that translated federal statutes and Presidential fiat into the practice of surveying and title conveyance and directed the work of the deputy surveyors and the land officers around the nation. The circulars, instructions - both general and special - and correspondence between all of the individuals involved in land matters provide the most accurate record of what happened a century ago. Those that have been published, either as single pamphlets or compilations of pamphlets, can be identified through the several checklists mentioned above. In addition, incomplete lists of the materials published by the General Land Office from 1789-1881 have been published in the Serial Set ( ).

The bulk of these materials are not published, however, but can be found in the collections of the National Archives and several state archives, or the state historical societies that have been designated state archives. Some of these institutions have published checklists, catalogs, or other finding aids, either as individual books or pamphlets or as articles in their journals. The National Archives, part of the General Services Administration, have produced a number of inventories, indexes, and checklists that give reference to the unpublished material concerning land (Van Tyne and Leland, 1907 pp.219-225; United States, General Services Administration, 1974a pp.371-377, 1974b pp.115-117;. Yoshpe and Brewer, 1949). Some of these materials are the focus of articles in the periodical Prologue, published by the National Archives.

The American State Papers. Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congresses of the United States is a compilation of legislative and executive documents during the first fourteen Congresses, 1789-1838. The materials were selected and edited by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Published between 1832(21?)-1861 by Gales and Seaton in Washington, the thirty-eight volumes are grouped into ten subject classes. Class 2, Indians, and Class 8, Public Lands, are most pertinent to public land survey history.

A checklist of the early publications is, A. W. Greely Public Documents on the first Fourteen Congresses, 1789-1817: ..., published in 1900, reprinted as Senate Document 428, 56th Congress, 1st session (Serial Set number 3879) and also as the Annual Report of the American History Association, 1903 vol.1 pp 343-406.

The Department of the Interior has published a number of compilations of land statutes . Public Land Statutes of the United States, compilation of general and permanent statutes of practical importance ...., published in 1931, is merely one. The annual report of the Treasury Department and the Department of the Interior, at various times the parent organization for the General Land Office, that are contained in the Serial Set volumes are of great value to anyone studying the history of the division and sale of a continent.

The Department of State has reprinted a number of important documents that portray the history of the public land survey, among others national endeavors. The Territorial Papers of the United States compiled and edited by Clarence Edwin Carter contains unpublished material from the National Archives. Twenty six volumes include material that describe the history and administration of the various Territories between 1781-1845, were published 1934- . The set contains correspondence between the governors and secretaries of the territories, important military individuals, the President, the secretaries of War, State and Treasury, the Attorney General, the Surveyors General, and the Postmaster General. Also included are letters from judges of the general court and the receivers and registers of the land district offices, papers relating to private land claims, land titles derived from French, British, Spanish, and Virginia periods, and resolutions, memorials, and petitions from various individuals, corporations, and states. Two additional volumes of the Territorial Papers, relating to Wisconsin Territory from 1836-1848, compiled and edited by John Porter Bloom were published by the National Archives and Records Service in 1969 and 1975.

One other type of publication requires mention. Because of the quasi-judicial powers Congress gave the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior, the Department of the Interior began to publish some decisions of the Secretary regarding the interpretation and effect of the land laws. First published in 1883, The Digest of Decisions of the Department of the Interior and the General Land Office, in cases relating to the Public Lands, commonly referred to as Land Decisions, replaced the earlier, privately produced land decisions (see below).

Conclusion

This is a brief description of the federal documents that can be consulted.

Bibliography

Ashmore, Anne. Presidential Proclamations concerning public lands: January 24, 1791 - March 19, 1936, numerical list and index. (Washington DC, Library of Congress Law Library, 1981).

Harris, Kenneth E and Steven D Tilley. Index. Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789. (Washnigton DC, General Services Administration, 1976).

United States, General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, National Archives. Guide to the National Archives of the United States. (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1974a).

United States, General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, National Archives Trust Fund Board. Catalog of National Archives Microfilm Publications. (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1974b)

Van Tyne, Claude H. and Waldo G. Leland. Guide to the Archives of the Government of the United States in Washington. (Washington DC, Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1907 2d ed.) pp.219-225.

Yoshpe, Harry B and Philip P Brower. .Land-Entry Papers of the General Land Office (Washington DC, National Archives and Records Service Prelinimary Inventory No. 22, 1949)

Addenda

1. The Government Document Division of Wilson Library on the west bank campus of the University of Minnesota, is one of three federal depository libraries at the University. Although many of the more recent acquisitions from the federal government are catalogued in LUMINA, the University Library's electronic card catalogue, all of the holdings can be accessed through special indexes located in the Government Document Division. The Monthly Catalogue, first published in 1895, is the general catalogue for all government publications. Recently the federal government has issued a CD-ROM that catalogues all publications since 1976. There are various multivolume finding aids including subject indexes to all of the statutes, indexes to Presidential papers, proclamations, and executive order, indexes to the Serial Set and to the publications of the General Land Office. There are a number of books that give an overview of federal documents and give suggestions on how to find various sorts of information in them.

2. I have neglected to mention judicial records for one simple reason. Much of the unpublished evidentiary material, containing an abundant amount of factual information potentially useful for a historical scholar, are not indexed in any way and therefore are inaccessible. Most of the published opinions of the federal courts are absent from all depository libraries. Except for the opinions of the federal Supreme Court, which are published by the Government Printing Office, opinions are published privately, mostly by West Publishing Company of St. Paul, and as such are not government documents. They are found, of course, in a law library, and there are many books and articles that describe how use them to carry out legal research.

3. The federal government first started publishing the decisions of the Secretary of the Interior in 1883. Before 1883, the decisions were published privately under such titles as Brainard's Legal Precededents, Copp's Pubic Land Laws , and Lester's Land Laws and Decisions. The aim of these publications was

to furnish officers of the government, members of the bar, settlers on the public lands, and all who are connected in any manner with the land affairs of the United States, all the means of information necessary to a thorough comprehension of the system (Lester, 1860).

Principal Meridians and baselines

Introduction

A regular, rectangular public land survey net extends across Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota, states that were created out of the Old Northwest Territory. Enormously influential, although largely imaginary, this net of interesting lines was constructed by the federal government for conveniently conveying titles to land. It is absent only in those areas that had already been settled, largely under French law, when the British Crown surrendered jurisdiction over them to a confederation of United States and in areas granted by the Continental Congress to private parties who surveyed them in a non-rectangular fashion. The net is irregular in Ohio, where the survey system evolved by trial and error, and in areas that formed what might be called outliers of early surveys, areas that were surveyed in isolation and subsequently incorporated into the national survey grid. (Figure 1)

The lines comprising the net served a dual purpose in permitting the federal government to effectively convey title to land. They defined the spatial dimensions or boundaries of every tract of land that the federal government wished to sell or donate to individuals, corporations and states, with reference to nested rectangles - townships, sections, quarter sections created by lines, a boundary control system that has not materially changed since 1796. They have had a lasting impact on human activities. A surprising number of the original ownership boundaries still exist, while some have been preserved in other boundaries, such as those of states and local government. Some of the original ownership boundaries have even been embodied in the roads and other artifacts of the modern landscape.

In addition, the lines described the unique location of the nested rectangles, with reference to two special lines, a meridian and a baseline, and their intersection, an initial point. Established in the early part of the nineteenth century by the Surveyor General of the Northwest Territory, Jared Mansfield, as a necessary response to the surveys Congress authorized in different parts of the country, these lines are basic to many modern boundary descriptions. The impact of this system of locational control on the modern landscape is pervasive, it underlies all legal descriptions. To the non-surveyor the impact on human activities is not as obvious as the impact of boundary control, however. In this paper I wish to draw attention to such lines by briefly reviewing their evolution.

Early Locational Control

In a series of statutes that started in 1785, Congress authorized the survey of those parts of the Northwest Territory (the territory northwest of the Ohio River) that had been ceded by Indians and for which there was a demand from actual and prospective settlers. Because of these legislative actions the public land survey proceeded in a piecemeal and uncoordinated fashion, contingent upon the demands of individuals who wished to own parcels of land, rather than on the efficiency of survey. Such an uncoordinated approach to land subdivision necessitated a variety of meridians and bases be used as reference lines to establish the locations of land ownership boundaries.

Most of the rectangular surveys started before the end of the eighteenth century used convenient reference lines such as watercourses, the boundaries of private land purchases and land grants, and lines arbitrarily drawn or drawn in a particular direction from the confluence of two rivers, as meridians and bases. Such lines not only served to locate land boundaries but also to demarcate the dimensions of the area that Congress authorized to be surveyed (Peters, 1930; Sherman, 1925). They were used as reference lines for uncoordinated surveys over limited areas. Some were run independently of all other survey lines, some were run as township exteriors. They were chosen by governments that wanted to survey only land that had been ceded by the Indians and could be sold quickly (Peters, 1930 85).

All of these early surveys have been described in fascinating detail (Sherman, 1925; Peters, 1930; Pattison, 1964, White, 1982). Only one feature need be noted here. Although the meridians and baselines used in the various surveys intersected, no initial point was designated for the surveys. Land was located not with reference to a point but with reference to both lines. Ellicott's Line, the west boundary of Pennsylvania and also the eastern boundary of the Old Northwest Territory was used as a meridian to control surveys in eastern Ohio. Two bases were used. Those surveys collectively called the Ohio River Survey (Peters, 1930) used the Ohio River as a base (Figure 2A). These surveys were carried out by surveyors of the federal government, in the Seven Ranges (1785-1806), the area to the north of the Seven Ranges and the Greenville Treaty Line drawn in 1795 (1800-1807) and the area to the west of the Seven Ranges (1796-?), and by surveyors of the Ohio Company (1787-1797). The surveys carried out by the surveyors employed by the Connecticut Land Company (1796-1805) also used Ellicott's Line as a meridian, but used the 41st parallel north as a base, a line that marked the southern boundary of Connecticut's western land claims (Figure 2-B).

The western limit of the Seven Ranges Survey, marking the eastern extent of the first government surveys, was used as a meridian along with a base comprising a line somewhat arbitrarily drawn from the western border of the Seven Ranges to the main branch of hte Scioto River, a line that delimited the southern extent of the United States Military Tract, to control the surveys in the Military Tract (1797-1799) (Figure 2-C).

The Great Miami River, marking the western boundary of the land purchase made by John Cleves Symmes, and the Ohio River were used as reference lines by the surveyors employed by him and subsequently by the federal government surveyors to control surveys between the Great and Little Miami Rivers (Figure 2-D).

The surveys using the Muskingum River as a base seem idiosyncratic (Figure 2-E).

Principal Meridians and Baselines

After 1796, Congress gave the responsibility for establishing all of the survey lines and a cadre of contracted deputy surveyors. Presidential appointees, these surveyors general were independent, from Congress which continued to authorize and fund the survey, remaining particularly interested in its extension into areas where there was a demand for land, and from the General Land Office, the agency authorized by Congress to actually convey title to the parcels of land described by the survey lines.

These individuals controlled the progress of the public land survey throughout the Old Northwest Territory. It was they who selected what principal meridians and baselines were needed, where they would begin and end, where they would intersect to form the initial point, and when they would be run. As in the earlier period, when locational control was dictated solely by Congress, how such lines were selected makes sense only when placed in the context of government, land ownership, and the practice of surveying all geared towards quickly surveying large areas that the United States legally owned and for which there was an increasing demand hence a ready market.

Unlike the earlier period, however, in the next fifty years, when the meridians and the baselines in the Old Northwest Territory were established, six states were formed. These sovereign states added a new governmental voice in the affairs of the various surveyors general who administered the public land survey.

In 1803, Jared Mansfield, who earlier had taught mathematics at West Point, became Surveyor General of the Northwest Territory. It was he who introduced a plan for intersecting meridians and baselines, thus transforming the previously loosely connected surveys into a system of rectangular coordinates (Cazier, 1876, 47), a system that would eventually tie together the nation's real estate. He envisaged the lines as convenient references and as a basis for adjusting the survey net to the land surface (Cazier, 1876, 48).

Under his plan the survey could continue to progress unsystematically across the lands owned by the federal government, but, unlike previously, in a coordinated manner. Lines that could be used to locate and control all boundary lines would be drawn at intervals across the Old Northwest Territory.

The First Principal Meridian controlled the survey only in northwestern Ohio and a small part of southeastern Indiana. It has a complicated history because it was partially established and its presumed course used to mark the boundary between Ohio and Indiana in 1802, before it was redesignated a meridian. Started in 1798 by Israel Ludlow, it was completed in 1815. Running northwards from the mouth of the Great Miami River to Fort Recovery on the Greenville Treaty Line it ends at the Indiana/Michigan boundary.

There were three baselines. One was the Great Miami River, controlling surveys to the east of the Meridian, between the Great Miami and the Greenville Treaty Line, "thus again adopting the inconvenience of a crooked river for (a) base" (Sherman, 1925, 123-124) (Figure 2F).

A second was the Ohio River controlling the surveys west of the Meridian and north to the Greenville Treaty line and closed against the western limb of the Greenville Treaty Line (Figure 2-G).

Neither of the surveys controlled by the Great Miami and Ohio rivers used an initial point for reference purposes. A third baseline was the 41st parallel controlling all of the surveys east of the Meridian, north of the Greenville Treaty Line. Surveys to the north of the baseline were closed against the western boundary of the Connecticut Western Reserve, the so-called Firelands and the Fulton Line run in 1818 (Fig. 2-H).

To the south of the baseline the surveys were closed against the Greenville Treaty Line, the Scioto River, and the Roberts Line on the south and the Fort Industry Treaty Line established in 1805, 120 miles west of the Pennsylvania Line (Figure 2-J).

The Second Principal Meridian and Baseline governs surveys in eastern Illinois and virtually all of Indiana, except in the extreme southeast (Figure 3-A).

It was established when Mansfield commenced surveying the French settlements on the Vincennes Tract in present-day Indiana. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin he explained his actions: "I have not considered this as an isolated tract; but have had regard to its connection with the old survey (in Ohio) and the surrounding country, according to one general and uniform system. For this purpose I have established a meridian, which I conceive to be at a proper distance from the one, which forms the Western boundary of the State of Ohio, and which lies near the Eastern extremity of the Tract, as a Directive, from which the Ranges on each side of it may be counted. This is the General Map, may be called the 2nd Meridian. One meridian, viz. that which is the Western Boundary of the State of Ohio, would have been sufficient if the surveys could have been made in regular progression from it Westward; but it would be impossible, in this discontinued Tract, without more data than I am in possession of, to determine its exact position in relation to the surveyed country so as to estimate the intermediate ranges which may actually arise. Hence the necessity for a new series of townships and ranges" (White, 1982, 51).

He established the meridian as a practical matter. The Vincennes Tract, which Congress authorized to be surveyed in 1802, was disconnected from the surveys that had already been completed. He proposed numbering the townships north and south from a baseline he would run rather than the River Ohio which had previously been used as a baseline. His plan was approved by Gallatin.

The Meridian which ran from the confluence of the Little Blue and Ohio Rivers northwards to the northern boundary of Indian passed 12 miles to the east of the southeast corner of the Vincennes Tract. The baseline was run in 1804, from the southwesternmost point of the Tract. The initial point lay outside the Vincennes Tract and was not physically established until the lands surrounding the Tract were ceded by the Indians. The surveys controlled by this meridian were closed against the northern boundary of Indiana in 1827.

The boundary between Indiana and Illinois caused a problem for the public land survey and the solution eventually accepted established the precedent that state boundary surveys would always precede rectangular surveys, and that retangular surveys would always be closed against state boundaries. In 1818, then Surveyor General Edward Tiffin proposed to no avail that he close the surveys controlled by the Second Principal Meridian against the boundary. In 1824 he told Congress that he could not continue surveying eastwards from the Third Principal Meridian because the surveys using the Second Principal Meridian had encroached into Illinois. In 1833 Congress appropriated funds to survey the boundary thus ending the controversy. The rectangular surveys would always be closed against state boundaries.

In 1805 Congress authorized Mansfield to extend the survey over lands that had recently been ceded by the Kaskaskia and the Sac and Fox Indians and the land claimed by French settlers at Kaskaskia on the Mississippi River. That same year Deputy Surveyor William Rector ran the Third Principal Meridian due north from the mouth of the Ohio River to govern the survey (Figure 3-B).

Mansfield intended to extend the baseline of the Second Principal Meridian westwards to the Mississippi but he could not because some of the land in southern Illinois had not yet been ceded.

As a consequence, the baseline for the Third Principal Meridian had to be calculated from already completed Indian boundary surveys and surveys governed by the Second Principal Meridian, along with astronomical observations.

As far as I have been able to determine, it was never run as an independent baseline. Surveys controlled by this meridian and baseline are closed against the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, the surveys controlled by those from the Second Principal Meridian, and the boundary of Illinois.

In 1815, Benjamin Hough began to run the Michigan Meridian north from Fort Defiance on land ceded at Detroit in 1807. At the same time, Alexander Holmes been to run the baseline due west from a point on Lake St. Clair (Figure 3-C).

Where they intersected was the initial point for the survey governing all the lands in Michigan and in the extreme northwest corner of Ohio. Surveys using this meridian were closed against the Fulton Line in northwestern Ohio, a fact that was to cause considerable problems (Sherman, 1916; White, 1982, 54, 72), and the state boundary between Wisconsin and Michigan in the Upper Peninsular.

The area between the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers had been reserved as military bounty land for the soldiers who participated in the War of 1812. In order to permit veterans to acquire title, the Fourth Principal Meridian was established, running from the confluence of the Mississippi and the Illinois Rivers northwards to Lake Superior (Figure 3-D,E).

Started in 1815, it crossed both the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. In all probability, if the courses of both rivers had been known more accurately at the time, their confluence would never have been used as a beginning point for a meridian. In 1831 it was extended to the northern boundary of Illinois which boundary was surveyed in 1831-32 and from there into Wisconsin (although what was to become Wisconsin was part of Michigan Territory at that time). Northwards from Illinois the Meridian was not run as a separate line but as a township exterior. The Meridian controls. the surveys in northwestern Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota east of the Mississippi River.

There are two baselines for this meridian; one was drawn running westward from the point where the meridian crosses the Illinois to the Mississippi River and controlled the surveys in the military tract (Figure 3-D). These surveys were closed against the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. A second was drawn at the boundary between the Wisconsin and Illinois and controlled the surveys in Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota (Figure 3-E). These surveys were closed against the Michigan/Wisconsin boundary (run in 1847 by William Burt with his solar compass when surveying exterior township lines), the Mississippi River, and the third guide meridian of the Fifth Principal Meridian in northern Minnesota. Surveys controlled by this Meridian extend to the west bank of the Mississippi to include the former Military Reservation at Fort Snelling.

Conclusion

The choices of the early meridians and baselines reflect the interrelated characteristics of government, land ownership, and the practice of surveying at the time. In many cases, the lines that make no sense today were obvious choices.

Bibliography

Cazier, Lola Surveys and Surveyors of the Public Domain, Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1976.

Pattison, William D. Beginnings of the American Rectangular Land Survey System, 1784-1800, University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 50, 1964.

Peters, William E. Ohio Lands and their History, Athens GA. Privately published , 1930. Republished Arno Press, 1979

Sherman, C.E. The Ohio-Michigan Boundary, Final Report of the Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey, Vol. 1, 1916.

Sherman, C.E. Original Ohio Land Subdivisions, Final Report of the Ohio Cooperative Topographic Survey, Vol. 3, 1925.

White, C. Albert A History of the Rectangular Survey System, Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1982.

The Administration of the Public Land Survey in the Old Northwest Territory

Introduction

The rectangular public land survey net did not spread continuously and contiguously across the Old Northwest Territory. Like a viscous fluid, it spread in different directions at different speeds, favoring certain areas and avoiding others. It became a bottleneck in the entire land alienation process. How fast tracts of land were located and real property boundaries established, how fast the field notes were transcribed and the plats drawn, determined the speed with which land was sold and subsequently settled. But the survey could not progress either continuously or contiguously. There were several reasons. In the first instance, the federal government did no acquire title from the Indians at one time but in a series of treaties according to political exigencies that were fuelled by the demands of individuals already squatting on or adjacent to the unceded lands, and often reserved areas for aboriginal use that were not surveyed until much later. Secondly, Congress authorized the survey of lands for which there was a ready market, usually in those areas that were relatively well-known. The survey tended to spread continuously, contiguously, and quickly in those areas. Conversely it spread discontinuously, sporadically, and slowly in areas that were less well known and in which there was little demand for land. It also spread slowly in those parts of the country in which there were extensive land claims made under Spanish, French, and British jurisdiction that needed to be adjudicated before survey. Thirdly, the progress of the survey was affected by the numerous and interrelated changes that occurred in surveying practice. Some of these were necessitated by what was known about the country authorized to be surveyed, some by changes in the land laws, some by the increasing sophistication of surveying equipment and surveying field methods.

The spatial discontinuity of Indian land cessions, Congressional authorizations for survey, and the demand for land, coupled with changes in the surveying profession all found expression in how the public land survey came to be administered. An overview of this administration, from one part of the country to another and from one time period to another, can help explain more precisely why and how the survey spread. Ultimately the progress of the survey depended on the availability of funds to create contracts between the federal government and the individual land surveyors who laid the rectangular net on the ground. Congress appropriated money to survey particular areas based on the requests and recommendations made by the surveyors themselves. These requests reflected, on one hand, what lands were available for survey and were in greatest demand, and on the other, the practice of surveying under the existing land laws. An overview of the public land survey administration directs attention to the instructions given the deputy surveyor who created the rectangular net, instructions that provide the context for what he did. Knowing the differences in written instructions between one deputy and another is essential if modern surveyors are to "follow in the footsteps" of the original surveyors. As Dodds at al (1943) stated,

The well qualified land surveyor.... should have access to the field notes and plats of the original surveyors whose work he must retrace. He needs to know the law relating to land surveying and boundaries.... he also needs to know as much about the instructions under which the earlier work was done so that he can correctly retrace and interpret the meaning of the original notes and plats (Dodds at al, 1943 v)

The public land survey of Minnesota, like the survey in others states of the Old Northwest Territory, were made under the general instructions current in an area when the surveys were made and the special instructions issued to the particular deputy surveyor who contracted to carry out the fieldwork. Until 1851, when the Manual of Instructions compiled by surveyors in Oregon was widely adopted, there were numerous general instructions, issued by the various surveyors general, the official given responsibility for the survey in a particular district. In Minnesota land east of the Mississippi River that had been ceded in the treaty of 1837 was surveyed 1847-1851 under the general instructions of the Surveyor General of Wisconsin and Iowa for 1846, 1850, and 1851. After 1851, the public land throughout the country was surveyed under the same set of general instructions. In 1855, the Manual of Surveying Instructions, expanding the earlier 1851 manual and establishing the present system of baselines, principal meridians, spacing of standard parallels, and guide meridians was issued (White, 1982 119). [Subsequent manuals published in 1871, 1881, 1890, 1894, 1902, 1930, 1947, and 1973 were similar to this one]. Such standardization in surveying practices ensured that, after 1851, the survey could spread in a more continuous and contiguous manner,

wherever practicable ... the public survey should be extended regularly and uniformly, with the one exception, where a line of communication with some important and distant point is highly desirable to be opened up and settled without waiting for the gradual extensions of the lines of survey over the surrounding country (GLO, 1860 67).

The special instructions that were given to the deputy surveyors carrying out work in Minnesota are to be found in the various letterbooks and contracts of the Surveyor General of Wisconsin and Iowa 1847-1857, who administered the survey in Minnesota, and the special instructions sent by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Surveyor General of Minnesota for special surveys after 1857.

The Administration of the Survey

In 1796, Congress created the office of Surveyor General with authority to survey an area, "northwest of the Ohio River and above the mouth of the Kentucky River in which the Indian title has been extinguished," and directed him to, "engage skillful surveyors as his deputies" (1 Stat. 464) (Figures 1 & 2). Through this, and subsequent legislation that created additional surveyors general and surveying districts throughout the Old Northwest Territory, Congress established an administrative system that ensured the public land survey could be carried out simultaneously in separate areas. However, by giving the various surveyors general considerable autonomy, Congress guaranteed that the lands in the separate surveying districts would not be surveyed in a standard fashion, at least until all of the surveyors general were instructed to adhere to the same general surveying instructions in 1851.

[In actual fact the differences in how the survey was effected from one surveying district to another was not finally eliminated until 1862, when Congress stipulated that one set of instructions, contained in the manual of 1855, "shall be taken and deemed to be part of every contract for surveying the public lands of the United States" (12 Stat. 409)].

Although Congress established the office of surveyor general to oversee the public land survey it continued to enact statutes that had an important influence on the surveys themselves (McEntyre, 1978; White, 1982). The act of February 11, 1805 was the last of the important amendments to the Land Ordinance of 1785 (2 Stat. 313). From then until 1851, except for special surveys, such as those demarcating Indian treaty lines and state boundaries, geological surveys, and a few statutes giving the President authority to modify the "ordinary mode of surveying", allowing particular surveyors general to deviate from the rectangular survey (e.g. May 11, 1811, 2 Stat. 662; May 24, 1824, 4 Stat. 34), Congress left the details of the survey in the hands of the surveyors general.

In 1812 Congress established the General Land Office (GLO) as a branch of the Treasury Department. The Commissioner of this new agency was given responsibility for the federal lands but he was not given clear authority over the surveyors general who continued to operate in a semi-autonomous fashion (White, 1982 59). The surveyors general, not their administrative superior to whom they reported, the Commissioner of the GLO, controlled the accuracy, direction, and speed of the survey across the nation. They were the individuals who awarded and supervised the surveying contracts, examined and approved the work of the deputy surveyors, and supervised both the transcription of the field notes and the preparation of the official plats upon which the various land district officers and prospective settlers depended. The surveyor general stamped his personality on his surveying district and often created unique problems (Rohrbough, 1968 260).

Presidential appointees, these surveyors general were independent, from Congress which continued to authorize and fund the survey ... and from the General Land Office, the agency Congress authorized to actually convey title to the parcels of land described by the survey lines (Squires, 1992 15)

The surveyor general, himself a political appointee, was powerful because he appointed the deputy surveyors,

"Public office meant power, the kind of power useful in retaining that office. The connection was obvious. Public debts must be paid, and the wherewithal was readily available" (Rohrbough, 1968 278).

"The post office, the Indian agency, the land office, the surveyor's district, each was a source of patronage and power with its appointive jobs" (Rohrbough, 1968 271).

The patronage associated with surveying was particularly significant because surveying not only was a profitable business but its spread in an areas often heralded future economic opportunities.

"The possibility of such rewards and the large tracts of new lands to be surveyed after the war (of 1812) led to fierce competition for surveying jobs. Moreover, in vast wilderness where no man knew much about lands, noone knew more than surveyors. It was not surprising that most surveyors connected themselves in one way or another with the buying and selling of land" (Rohrbough, 1968 97).

Not surprisingly,

"A problem in filling the office of surveyor general was that of finding a man both capable and resistant to opportunities inherent in the office for unauthorized dealings in land" (Rohrbough, 1968 209).

The surveyors general produced volumes of records. Most well known to the land surveyor and most often used are the plats and the field notes produced by the deputy surveyors. Copies of the contracts for survey between the surveyor general and the deputy surveyor, containing any special instructions for that particular survey, are also well known. From time to time each surveyor general issued instructions relating generally to all of the contracts for surveys in his district or specifically to one particular contract. [While the instructions issued by one surveyor were independent of those issued by another it would be facile to suggest that the problems common to the surveyors of a particular time were not handled in a similar manner regardless of the administrative machinery]. There are other less well known and used records, such as copies of letters received and letters sent, accounting records, and petitions for survey (see Dis-closures Summer, 1992). Some of these records have been published in the American State Papers, Class 8 and the various volumes of the Territorial Papers of the United States (see Dis-closures, Spring, 1992). Each surveyor general produced an annual report in which he commented on virtually anything he thought pertained to the public land survey (see Dis-closures Winter, 1992).

The records produced by a particular surveyor general relate to a particular area, the surveying district. These districts were established purely for administrative convenience and, although their boundaries often coincided with the boundaries of a territory or a state or several joined together, they were independent of territories and states (Donaldson, 1881 171). When they included several territories or states the surveyor general was responsible for keeping the records of the various jurisdictions separate. In 1833 Congress directed that territorial and state boundaries should take precedence over the public land survey lines. Afterwards, township and subdivision lines lines adjacent to state boundary lines were drawn after the state boundaries had been surveyed and closed against the boundary line (Squires, 1992 16).

Congress annually appropriated funds to the surveying district partly based on the reports of the surveyor general. The creation of a new district meant increased prosperity for the settlements that provided the starting points for the survey crews,

"Every new surveying district meant a large number of deputy surveyors. Each deputy employed a gang of men to assist him in the wilderness: axemen, chain carriers, a cook, and occasionally a hunter" (Rohrbough, 1968 180).

This fragmented administrative system created by Congress caused few administrative problems. There was no geographical overlap between surveying districts and each surveyor general had complete authority over the surveys in his area.

Surveyors General of the Northwest Territory (Figures 1 & 2)

Rufus Putnam was appointed the nation's first surveyor general, holding the title Surveyor General of the Northwest Territory, 1796-1803. Before his appointment he was already supervising the federal surveys in the Northwest Territory, having been the surveyor general of Maine and one of the founders of the Ohio Company of Associates. After his appointment, he opened his office at Marietta, Ohio first contracting with Israel Ludlow to survey the Greenville Treaty Line that had been established in 1795.

In 1802 Congress authorized Putnam to subdivide the French settlements in the Vincennes Tract west of the surveys that had been completed at the time. However, in a change of practice that demonstrated the political nature of surveying at the time, President Thomas Jefferson was given authority to appoint the deputy surveyors. Putnam was a Washington-Adams appointee and was dismissed the next year. Jared Mansfield, professor of mathematics at the West Point Military Academy, became surveyor general. In 1804 his authority was extended to all the lands north and east of the River Ohio and east of the Mississippi River to which Indian title had been extinguished or "shall hereafter be extinguished" (2 Stat. 277). He was also made responsible for surveying the boundary lines that had been established in the various treaties between the United States and the Indians.

In 1804, Mansfield issued what are believed to be the first general instructions to the deputy surveyors under his supervision and from then until 1855 the various surveyors general were to send many such letters and circulars to their deputies, instructing them how they were to carry out the survey generally throughout the district and specifically in a particular contract (White, 1982 49, 231).

In 1805 Mansfield moved his office to Cincinnati and remained there until 1812 when he resigned to return to West Point. He was replaced by Josiah Meigs, a member of the Connecticut bar, newspaper founder and schoolteacher of mathematics and natural philosophy, although not very knowledgeable about surveying. Meigs became the Surveyor General of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri in the same year that the GLO was established with Edward Tiffin as its first Commissioner. In 1814 Tiffin and Meigs exchanged jobs. Tiffin, an immigrant from England with a medical practice in Philadelphia and Chillicothe, and who had been the first governor of the state of Ohio and a United States senator, became surveyor general and moved the office to Chillicothe, Ohio near his family and friends. His appointment lasted 14 years and he "would prove to be a superb Surveyor General, possibly outranking Mansfield in ability and capacity for the job" (White, 1982 61). The instructions he wrote to William Rector, then Principal Deputy of Missouri with offices in St Louis, in 1815 probably served as a model for other instructions that appeared in 1828, 1834, 1837, 1843 (Dodds et al, 1943 21-26; White, 1982 246).

In 1816, Congress established the office of "the surveyor of the lands of the United States in the territories of Illinois and Missouri" because the survey was progressing slowly in the Illinois military tract (3 Stat. 325). Tiffin settled all of the contracts he had made in Illinois and passed on the records of Illinois to William Rector, then Principal Deputy of the Louisiana Territory in St Louis, who was appointed Surveyor General of the new surveying district (Figures 1 & 2).

In 1822, the surveyors general were ordered to prepare the plats instead of the deputy surveyors. Obviously, "platting had become too complex to be left up to the field surveyors" (White, 1982 76). During the year, Congress directed that each surveyor general to post bond for $30,000, "for the faithful disbursement, according to the law, of all public money placed in his hand, and for the faithful performance of the duties of his office" (3 Stat. 697). In 1824 Rector was dismissed and William McRee was appointed Surveyor General of Illinois and Missouri.

When Andrew Jackson was elected President in 1828 he replaced Tiffin, now in ill health, by General William Lytle, a leading Jacksonian in Ohio. Lytle was commissioned Surveyor General of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan in 1829 and moved his office to Cincinnati. He died in office March 18, 1831 and Micajah T Williams became Surveyor General. In the same year Elijah Hayward, Commissioner of the GLO, ordered all of the surveyors general to prepare instructions for the deputy surveyors (Dodds et al, 1943 27-34). For the next twenty years nearly all of the surveyors general issued instructions, for Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan in 1833 (White, 1982 291-300) and 1850 (Dodds et al, 1943 80-101; White, 1982 359-379), for Illinois and Missouri in 1834 (Dodds et al, 1943 35-54; White, 1982 301-313) and 1856 (White, 1982 401-431), and for Wisconsin and Iowa in 1846 (Dodds et al, 1943 69-79) and 1851 (Dodds et al, 1943 102-116; White, 1982 385-399), especially important for the surveys between the St. Croix and Mississippi river completed before 1851. Although there were many similarities between these various instructions,

during the period, each Surveyor General had his individual concept of how the surveys should be performed in his area of authority; most stayed within the letter of the law, as they interpreted that law (White, 1982 90).

As Rohrbough wrote,

""In spite of the wisdom of the men who drew up the system in 1785, and in spite of the compliments paid it by Mansfield, Meigs, and others, the execution of surveys of the public lands was almost totally uncodified. Each surveyor general - and in some cases, each deputy - attended to the matter as he saw fit"(Rohrbough, 1968 268).

In 1832, William McRee was appointed one of the surveyors of the boundary between the United States and Mexico and was replaced as Surveyor General of Missouri and Illinois, by Elias T Langham. In 1835, deputy surveyor William Burt invented the "True Meridian Finding" instrument, now known as the solar compass, allowing him to execute his contracts in the iron ore region of Michigan. In April 1835, Robert Lytle, son of the former surveyor general William Lytle, replaced Micajah Williamson as Surveyor General of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan at Cincinnati.

1836 was an important year in the history of the public land survey. On July 4, Congress reorganized the GLO and placed the survey under the direct supervision of the Commissioner, with a Principal Clerk in charge of surveys (5 Stat. 107).

This act brought the public land surveys under a tighter control by the officials in Washington .... the act did let everyone know who (w)as in authority and made into law those reforms which Elijah Haywood had made unilaterally. The Surveyors General continued in a semi-autonomous role, even though the Commissioner had more control (White, 1982 96).

During the year, Congress admitted Michigan to the Union and established the Territory of Wisconsin (5 Stat. 10). The Surveyor General of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan at Cincinnati retained responsibility for the surveys throughout the area, however. Daniel Dunklin replaced Elias Langham as Surveyor General of Missouri and Illinois.

In 1838, Ezekiel S Haines was appointed as Surveyor General in Cincinnati, replacing the ailing Robert Lytle. A few days earlier, Congress divided Wisconsin Territory into two along the Mississippi River, creating Iowa Territory (5 Stat. 235). On the same day Congress authorized appointing a Surveyor General for Wisconsin Territory (5 Stat. 243). Albert G Ellis was appointed and opened his office at Dubuque in February 1839 and was given the responsibility for the surveys in Iowa and Wisconsin.

When Mr Ellis arrived at Dubuque in 1839 he found a territory of 23,000 people clamoring for surveys and land sales. His arrival was not auspicious because it was delayed by bad weather and a frozen river. His salary was to be $1,500 per year, an amount $500 below that of any other surveyor general .... For help, one draughtsmen and one clerk, he was allowed $1,600. Rent, fuel, etc., were estimated to cost him $350 per year.... The Cincinnati office had been able to start his supply of instrumental equipment with two ivory scales (Dodds et al, 1943 10-11).

In November of 1839 Surveyor General Ezekiel Haines at Cincinnati turned over the records of the surveys that had already been made in Wisconsin and Iowa to Ellis. William Milburn was appointed Surveyor General of Missouri and Illinois.

In 1840, George W Jones replaced Albert Ellis at Dubuque. During the year the first attempts at resurvey were made when the original surveys were found to be flawed (White, 1982 99). Congress enacted important legislation, June 12, providing that when surveys in a particular state were completed the Surveyor General's office would be discontinued and all of the surveying records would be transferred to the state (5 Stat. 384). This act was amended January 22, 1853 to ensure that individual states would designate an office to accept the records and provide access to them (10 Stat. 152).

In 1841, William Milburn was replaced by Silas Reed at St Louis and James Wilson replaced George Jones in Dubuque. In 1842, William Johnston became Surveyor General of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. By now, the practice of letting contracts for the exteriors and the subdivisions separately, and only for those that could be completed in a year, was firmly established. The Appropriations Act passed March 3 1845, directed William Johnston to close the office of Surveyor General of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan in Cincinnati and move it to Detroit (5 Stat. 752). The records of the survey in Ohio were to be turned over to the state, even though the surveys in that state had not been entirely completed. George W Jones was reappointed Surveyor General of Wisconsin and Iowa, Frederick Conway replaced Silas Reed at St Louis, and Lucius Lyon was appointed to replace William Johnston in Detroit.

Iowa was admitted to the Union 1846 leaving the western part of Minnesota, as yet unceded by Indians, without government (5 Stat. 752). Wisconsin became a state May 29 1848 (9 Stat. 233). Neither of these actions had any impact on the the survey administration. In 1848, Lucius Lyons was ordered to close the Indiana survey and turn the records over to the state. Frederick Conway was ordered to close the Illinois survey but he did not turn over the records for some 20 years because the Illinois legislature failed to provide for their custody.

Caleb H Booth replaced George Jones at Dubuque in 1849, during which year Congress established Minnesota Territory (9 Stat. 403). The new Surveyor General of Wisconsin and Iowa was to continue to administer the surveys that had already been started in the new jurisdiction, although he was instructed to keep the Minnesota records separate from those of Wisconsin and Iowa (White, 1982 112). On the same day that Congress established Minnesota Territory it created the Department of the Interior in which the GLO was placed (9 Stat 395).

In 1851 the first Manual of Surveying Instructions, written by John M Moore, Principal Clerk for the Surveyor General of Oregon, was issued (White, 1982 433-456) . In April that year George B Sargent at Dubuque, who had replaced Caleb Booth in March, received a copy of the manual and was instructed to use the manual to establish closing corners. In July 1852, Sargent was instructed to adopt the Oregon Manual to govern the public land surveys in Minnesota. Warner Lewis, who replaced Sargent in 1853, received the same instructions.

In the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriations Act, March 3 1857, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to move the office of the Surveyor General Northwest of the Ohio River, then at Detroit, to St. Paul Minnesota Territory (11 Stat. 206). On March 27, Charles Emerson, was notified that he had been appointed Surveyor General of Minnesota. He took over from Leander Chapman, Surveyor General of Michigan, on April 12, closed the Detroit office on May 11, and opened the St Paul office May 23 (Figures 1 & 2). He transferred most of the Michigan records to the new office. In addition, he acquired the records of the surveys that had been completed in Minnesota Territory since 1847 from Warner Lewis in Dubuqe.

From 1857 until 1908 Minnesota Territory and subsequently state remained a separate surveying district. In 1907, the Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation providing for storing the records of the Surveyor General of Minnesota. The Department of Public Surveys was created under the Secretary of State, and the records transferred to state custody February 1, 1908. The office of the Surveyor General of Minnesota was closed February 4, 1908.

Conclusion

The integrity and spread of the public land survey across the Old Northwest Territory, particularly before 1851, depended to a great extent on the ability of the surveyors general who administered the various surveying districts. The records of these individuals comprise the written evidence of the work of the deputy surveyors, describing why and how the points and lines that comprise the rectangular survey net survey were established. The records also provide valuable information about the spread of settlement. On the basis of these records, Congress enacted land laws, funded surveyinf efforts, and continued the entire land alienation process.

Appendix

Today most of the records relating to the public land survey of Minnesota can be found in the Minnesota Historical Society collections (see Dis-closures, Summer 1991). These records also contain some information about the later Michigan surveys. Since the earliest Minnesota surveys were administered by the surveyor general of Iowa and Wisconsin at Dubuque, some correspondence about the Minnesota surveys will be found in the Iowa state archives in Des Moines.

The 1855 Manual of Surveying Instructions is reprinted in Dodds et al (1943) pp. 117-186 and in White (1982) pp. 457-500). Manuals, issued in 1881, 1890, 1894, 1902 are reprinted in White (1982) pp. 511 et seq.

Bibliography

Dodds, J. S. et al Original Instructions Governing Public Land Surveys of Iowa, a guide to their use in resurveys of public lands (Ames, Iowa, Iowa Engineering Society, 1943).

Donaldson, Thomas C., The Public Domain, its history with statistics .... (Washington DC. Government Printing Office, 1881)

General Land Office, Annual Report for 1860. S.exec.doc 1, 36th Congress 2d session (Serial Set 1078)

McEntyre, John G., Land Survey Systems (New York, Wiley, 1978)

Rohrbough, Malcolm. J., The Land Office Business, the settlement and administration of American public lands, 1789-1837 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1968)

Squires, Rod., "Principal meridians and baselines in the Old Northwest Territory" Dis-closures (Summer, 1992) 14-16

Stewart, Lowell O., Public Land Surveys, History, Instructions, Methods (Ames, Iowa, Collegiate Press, 1935)

White, C. Albert, A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1982).

Survey 1847-1852

Survey 1853-1857

County Boundaries

Proposal

Preliminary Inventory of Iowa State Archives

Survey 1857-1860

Letters Sent by Surveyor General Charles L. Emerson, 1857

Introduction

In previous papers the published annual reports of the surveyors general of Wisconsin and Iowa for the years 1847-1859 and those of the first surveyor general of Minnesota for the years 1857-1860 were used to show how the public land survey spread in Minnesota (Squires, 1993, 1994). Each annual report comprised one of a number of letters sent by the surveyor general to his superior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office (Figure 1 a), which in turn comprised a small proportion of the letters sent by the surveyor general in a particular year (Figure 1 b), and an even smaller proportion of the letters that form the entire business correspondence of the surveyors general. This correspondence supplements and enriches the story of the public land survey described in the annual reports because in the various letters are descriptions of where and how the surveyor general expected the deputies to work and how the deputies actually fulfilled their contracts. The information contained in the letters clearly suggests that land surveying in Minnesota, probably throughout the nation, was a more complex affair than has genrally been supposed and the problems faced by the surveyors general and their deputies more difficult than is illustrated by the maps that can be drawn at intervals of time. Most importantly, however, for the modern land surveyors, these letters contain the instructions that a particular surveyor general gave to his deputies when awarding a contract to survey a particular area. Such instructions are invaluable to anyone wishing to "follow in the footsteps" of their predecessors in survey as Dodds et al (1943) have shown for Iowa.

As an example of this correspondence I report here on some of the letters sent by Charles L. Emerson, the first surveyor general of Minnesota, from May-December 1857, after he opened his office in St. Paul. This material is kept by the Minnesota Historical Society and was described by the editor of this magazine, John Freemeyer (Dis-Closures, Fall 1992) (see Appendix).

When Emerson commenced his duties in St. Paul he was faced with several tasks. He was to continue the surveys in Minnesota, a task I reported on previously (Squires, 1994). He also had to respond to questions about the Michigan survey which he had closed prior to moving to St. Paul. Most importantly perhaps, he was to ensure that all of the plats and notes that had been produced by deputies employed by the surveyors general of Wisconsin and Iowa, who had been responsible for the public land survey in Minnesota from 1847-1857, were transferred from then-surveyor general Warner Lewis in Dubuque, Iowa to St. Paul.

These early letters, raise serious doubts about the notion that Emerson carried on the survey in Minnesota "without any particular troubles" (White, 1982 126). A difficulty he faced in letting contracts initially, in fact throughout 1857 and early 1858, was that the plats and notes of townships adjacent to the areas in which he gave contracts, plats and notes that would control the work of his deputies, had not been completed by the deputies having contracts with Lewis or, if they had been completed, had not been transferred to St. Pauk. As a consequence, some of the lines run in both of these years might contain an unusually large number of errors. Emerson was at pains to point out on several occasions that if the plats and notes he received from Lewis showed up errors in the lines run by the deputies that he, Emerson, employed they would be expected to rerun them. In a letter to deputy surveyor Moses K. Armstrong, dated November 3 Emerson admonished that if the surveys that preceeded his rended his surveys less accurate then he would be obligaed to redo the work at his expense.

The Data - Letters Sent

Each volume of Letters Sent, usually called a Letterpress Book, contain the transcribed copies of the letters sent by the surveyor general or perhaps his chief clerk. Each volume may span more than one year. Until 1889 the copies were handwritten but are easily read. Each contains an index of addressees, a useful research tool for anyone looking at the work of individual deputies. The letters in these books were written by a variety of individuals and cover a variety of topics. A descriptive list, prepared by a member of the Minnesota Historical Society staff, gives an overview. Volume J contains the letters sent by both Leander Chapman, surveyor general of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio River at Detroit, and Charles Emerson in 1857 and the early part of 1858. Two more volumes contain the letters sent by Emerson before he was replaced by William D. Washburn in March 1861..

The letters are best gouped according to addressee (Figure 1 b).

A. Letters to the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington D. C. concerning the administration of Emerson's office in St. Paul, the payment of the deputies following fieldwork, and other miscellaneous surveying queries, for example. The annual report for 1857 is included in this group of letters.

B. Letters to individuals in charge of the various land district offices responding to question about the availibility of plats and descriptive lists for lands within a particular district. In the correspondence described here only a few plats were sent to the district land office to allow the land to be advertised for sale.

C. Letters to various businesses regarding supplies, such as paper.

D. Letters to Warner Lewis, the surveyor general at Dubuque, Iowa. Most concerned the speed with which the records of the Minnesota survey were being transferred to St Paul but, not surprisingly, some involved questions of survey methodology and requests for information.

E. Letters to individuals who had requested particular areas be surveyed at their expense, those who inquired about the availibility of specific township plats, and those who questioned the accuracy of the surveys that had been completed.

F. Letters to individuals who requested work, both surveying and clerical duties. Some of these applicants were accepted, some rejected - because the individuals did not fill out the necessary forms correctly, and some accepted on condition either that they could prove their competency or that their previous surveys were deemed adequate.

G. Letters to deputies, probably the group of most interest to modern surveyors. These comprise three categories; first, those in which individuals are awarded contracts and given instructions on how to carry out the contract, second, those in which Emerson either responded to a query from a deputy carrying out a particular contract or forwarded completed field notes to help the deputy, and third, those in which Emerson accepted the deputy's work. Some of these letters were obviously sent in reponse to a request from the deputy.

H. Letter to individuals regarding the Michigan survey. Even into December Emerson was answering queries about the Michigan survey.

What follows is a brief review of some individual letters, listed by date, omitting the details of the actual instructions.

A. Letters to the Commissioner of the General Land Office

On April 13 Emerson, then in Detroit, wrote that he was going to proceed to St. Paul on April 16 to procure a suitable building and then return to Detroit to close down that office. On May 8 he wrote saying that he had transferred the surveying records for Michigan to the state government and was moving to St. Paul. Some two weeks later, on May 26 he described his St. Paul office,

The building is a two story one: the first floor is to be used for the city post office, and the second one I have secured for the use of this office, at an annual rent of eight hundred dollars, commencing on the 15th instant. The rent is as reasonable as can be procured. I regard the selection as one of the best that can be made in this city, at this time, there being comparatively few brick tenements and none that are more secure from fire than the one selected.

On May 30 he sent an invoice for paying his salary, $2,075, the salaries of his clerks, $425, and incidental office expenses, $570 for the second quarter of 1857. He added a postscript, "A draft on New York can be used here without loss, which will not be the case if drawn on many other depositories".

On June 6 he acknowledged receiving the copies of the field notes and maps of the Gull and Rabbit Lake Reservations, created under the 1854 treaty, notes and maps that had been executed under the Superintendent of Indian Office. He wrote, "Your instructions relative to closing the lines of the public survey upon the boundaries of the Reservations will be strictly observed".

On June 18 he acknowleged the Commissioner's letter regarding the appropriations that were available for the survey. Of the area he wanted to survey, he wrote,

"I have selected the districts of the country described, as being of most suitable for early surveying operations on information derived from settlers, and from gentlemen well acquainted with their wants, as regards the prosecution of surveys."

On June 29 he submitted his expenditures for the second quarter of the year, April 12-June 30, 1857. His desk had been much abused in the journey from Detroit and he'd refinished it!

On July 16 he wrote regarding inspections north of Lake Superior.

"The difficulties attending an inspection of the survey in the Lake Superior region, rendering it beyond the power of one Inspector, to properly examine those surveys, as well as those West of the Mississippi river, I would respectfully suggest that authority be given me to employ a special Inspector for the Lake Superior surveys, to be paid a reasonable per diem (say $5) together with his actual and necessary expenses while engaged upon such examination".

For the surveys lying immediately East of the Mississippi river, and those west thereof, I propose employing one Inspector at an annual compensation of $1,400 together with his actual & necessary expenses while in the field. This is the rate of compensation which, I am informed was allowed by the Surveyor General of Wisconsin & Iowa to the Inspector whose field of operation embraced the surveys in this Territory whilst under his superintendence.

July 16 he wrote to the Superintendent of Indian Affars asking that Josias King, then surveying on the Rum River, be reimbursed for Indian depredations and that he take steps to ensure that such action were not repeated. The same letter was also sent to Indian Agent Harriman. On August 11 Emerson wrote again to Harriman,

"I enclose you herewith an account, sworn to and submitted by J. R. King D.S. setting forth the loss sustained by him whilst at work in the field by the depradations of a band of Chippewa Indians, under one Ka-buc-a-tee. Considering the distance to which Mr. King was at work from any point where he could obtain a supply of provisions to replace those stolen and destroyed, the difficulty attending the transportation of the same through swamp and woods and the inconvenience and delay to which he has been subjected, I do not think his estimate of loss sustained other than reasonable, and towards his reimbursement, I will thank you, to use your best endeavours".

On July 23 he sent his third quarter requisitions in early because of the uncertain winter mail, a request that included money for two stoves and fuel. He argued that the price of goods was so much cheaper than they would be in the winter when navigation ceased. Once again, he asked that the money be remitted as a draft on New York.

On September 10 he responded to a letter instructing him to transmit plats and descriptive notes to the land offices at Buchanan and Ojibwa. He informed the Commissioner that he had not received the material from Warner Lewis in Dubuque and the contracts that he had let in the two districts had not been completed at this time. He noted that the surveys for which he had contracted were all in the Buchanan land district. He had contracted only for a correction line in the Ojibwa, or Northwestern, land district.

On October 5 he wrote regarding the death of one of his deputies, Saul W. Putnam, asking what should be gone about his contract. Three days later he wrote to Perley P. Putnam asking for the notes that his brother had made before he died.

On September 23 he estimated his expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30 1859. His salary would be $8,300 and those for his clerks $10,000. He anticipated the surveys of the Northeastern (Buchanan) district at augmented rates costing $25,000, the surveys of the Northwestern district (Ojibwa) at augmented rates costing $45,000, and the surveys in Minnesota west of the Mississippi river and south of the Northestern district costing $80,000. Incidental expenses of the office including the rent, stationery, fuel, printing binding, messengers, postage and other items he estimated would cost $35,000.

On October 6 he sent a list of the contracts he had let to date and on October 26 he sent his annual report. On November 2 he wrote asking for his expenses. As a postscript he argued,

"As gold coin will be exceedingly scarce in this city by the time the draft for the above amount reaches here, it will be necessary for me to visit Dubuque, Iowa to have the draft cashed, in which event I would respectfully enquire whether the Dept will allow my actual expenses in travelling to and returning from that city. A draft on New York could be used to much more advantage in this city than one on Dubuque, hence my reason for asking in my letters of the 30th May & 23d July last, that the draft for the amounts of my requisitions of those dates might be remitted per draft on New York.

Should it be necessary for me to visit Dubuque I would remark that as travelling is then done in stages it will require some 5 or six days to go and the same lenght of time to return".

The following day he sent his accounts for the deputies who had finished their contracts along with the plats and field notes. The same day, November 3, he wrote to his deputies saying that he had sent the material to Washington.

On December 30 he presented the account of Elias C.Martin. He made note that some of the lines were not run according to the printed instructions, for example the southern tier of section lines in T53NR15W were not long enough. He sent a letter to Martin talking about the discrepancies. In the letter to Washington he mentioned an independent meridian (see Squires, 1994 18, a comment that will be investigated in a future paper).

In several letters he makes reference to other information to which he clearly had access but which is absent in the letterpress book. On July 17, for example, he wrote regarding the course of the survey in Minnesota in which he referred to a diagram showing his plans for the guides and standards. Again, on July 21 he mentioned an instruction circular of May 22.

B. Letters to land officers

On September 8 Emerson wrote to George B. Clitherall, the register of the Northwest land district, responding to Clitherall's letter asking whether there would be enough land surveyed in the district by June 1 1858 that a land office should be opened. He wrote that no surveys apart from a correction line had been run and he estimated that it would be fall 1858 before sufficient lands would be surveyed to make a land office practicable.

On September 17 he sent letters to both the Commissioner of the General Land Office and A. C. Smith, register of Minneapolis land district office, regarding the subdivision of a lot. On December 19 he sent the plats of an island in the St Croix to the Stillwater land office. The island had been surveyed at private expense by H. H. Newbury, and paid for by Ebenezer Colby (see below).

C. Letters requesting supplies

On May 26 Emerson ordered paper from T. G. & W. W. Carson, Dalton Massachusetts.

D. Letters to Warner Lewis in Dubuque

On May 27 Emerson commenced what would be a protracted effort to transfer the surveying records relating to Minnesota from Dubuque to St. Paul. Almost a month later he wrote,

"By instructions this day received from the Comm of the Gen Land Office, I am directed upon receipt from your office of "evidence of the surveys yet to be executed by Mr. Burt Deputy Surveyor situated in Townships 48, 49 & 50 N. R 51 W and in Townships 49 & 59 N. R 14 W to contract for the necessary additional surveys" on Lake Superior and on the left bank of St Louis river.

"The Comm also states as follows to wit "In Minnesota surveys west of the Mississippi under the instructions of 23d April 1856 some progress has been made - leaving for your action under those instructions the following yet to be executed in advance of the other field work to wit 1st to contract for the exterior lines and subdivisions of theTownships E of the 4th Guide Meridian, to the Mississippi river, and North of the 6th Standard parallel, and South of the 8th Standard parallel so soon as the field notes of the survey and diagrams of the Guide Meridian and the Standard parallels are furnished by the Surveyor General at Dubuque.

"From the foregoing extracts it will be seen that I shall be unable to contract for further surveys in Lake Superior until I am advised of the completion of Mr Burt's work and that I cannot contract for the survey of the Township lines and the subdivisions between the 4th Guide Meridian and the Mississippi and the 6th and 8th Parallels until I have received from your office, notes and diagrams of the survey of the 4th Guide Meridian from the 6th to the 8th Parallel, and of the 6th and 8th parallels, from the 4th Guide to the Mississippi.

"The corrected diagram furnished by your office represents the 4th Guide Meridian to be in an unfinished state from the 6th to the 7th Parallels and the 7th Parallel, from the 4th Guide to the river, as also unfinished. From said diagram it does not appear that the 4th Guide Meridian has been extended North to the 8th Parallel or that the 9th Parallel has been run, or that either has been placed under contract.

"The surveying season being already far advanced, I feel very anxious to commence field operations with the least possible delay".

Not all communications with Lewis concerned the transfer of records, some were of a more technical nature, one surveyor to another. On June 15 he wrote,

"Will you please advise me upon what plan the township lines North of the St Louis River and Lake Superior have been laid out?

"The diagram received from your office does not show that a Correction line North of the 4th has been run; If a 5th Correction line has been run, I will thank you to designate its locality.

"If you have instructions from the Department relative to laying out townships on the North shore of Lake Superior, a copy of them would be of use to me".

On June 18 he wrote, "Will you oblige me with a copy of the Comms instructions to you of April 30th and September 27th 1856 concerning the survey of Indian Reservations under treaties with the Chippewas of Lake Superior and of the Mississippi?"

By October 1 Emerson was clearly losing patience over the speed with which Lewis was sending him the plats and notes of Minnesota. Quoting a letter from the General Land Office dated April 1, he wrote,

"As constant calls are made upon this office for information touching on the surveys already completed in this Territory, to enable me not only to answer such calls but to carry on successfully and with as little delay as practicable the surveys for which I have contracted, it is necessary that I should have in my possession as much information concerning the same as possible, which information I cannot obtain from any other source than from the returns of the surveys which have already been completed.

"The "official organization" spoken of by the Dept is not complete, nor can it be, until I have recd. from you all the documents which you have in you posession relating to surveys in this Territory, the major part of which I presume must be in a condition to be turned over to this office".

Clearly Lewis was sending plats and field notes as his deputies completed their contracts, Emerson received the notes of the Iowa/Minnesota boundary survey on August 27, for example. But Emerson also asked specifically for certain township plats when his deputies could not find the corners to allow them to subdivide a township.

Letters, miscellaneous.

On July 31 Emerson responded to the complaint of a number of citizens from Olmstead county regarding the corners in the county, asking that the county surveyor be authorized to move them. Emerson forwarded a copy of the citizen's letter to the Commissioner of the General Land Office on the same day and in the accompanying letter wrote, "The removal of said corners would render necessary a resurvey of the Township in question, and being fully aware of the objections on the part of the government to the ordering of Resurveys, I have deemed it proper to lay the case before your office, for such action as you may think the merits of the case deserves".

Throughout the correspondence are letters regarding private surveys, surveys of a particular area undertaken by deputies under contract but paid for by those individuals requesting the survey. Many of the requests concerned islands in the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers. On August 1 he responded to his first application for such a survey, of islands in the Mississippi. In the letter he appointed R. D. Lancaster of Sauk Rapids as a deputy and gave him special instructions. He also added, "It is to be distinctly understood that in no event is the government to incur any expense for the survey of the islands in question". On September 14 he responded to a request for a survey of an island by writing that the island was already surveyed. Some of the requests occasioned protracted corresopondence. On September 19 he wrote to Levi N. Folsom of Taylors Falls regarding the survey survey of an island in the St Croix. This was followed by a letter September 29 to H. H. Newbury DS, interestingly care of Levi N. Folsom, Taylors Falls giving him instructions regarding the survey. The survey was also the subject of a letter written on November 5 and December 19 when Emerson forwarded the notes and plats to the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington D.C. The survey, in sections 33 and 34 T36NR20W was apparently paid for by one Ebenezer Colby (see above).

On November 30 Emerson wrote to Thomas Straw at St Cloud.

"In reply to your of 6th ins. complaining that the subdivisional survey of T121NR29W had been incorrectly executed, I have to state that before any action can be taken by this office it is necessary that you designate the particular lines which have been erroneously etablished. The assertion that "the survey of this Township is not done correctly" is not sufficiently explicit to enable me to act".

He said the same in a letter, also dated November 30, to E. D. Atwater, enclosing tracings of the plats of subdivision surveys in question, that had been executed earlier by Silas Barnard. Emerson asked Atwater to, "use every means in your power to detect any error in the subdivision thereof".

F. Letters asking for work

The letters cover applications for work in the office as well as in the field. There are several letters addressed to individuals in Minnesota and elsewhere who obviously requested surveying contracts. When he first received such requests he was forced to refuse to give contracts. On May 29, for example, he wrote to H. P. Van Cleve of Long Prairie,

"I am not yet in receipt of instructions from Washington authorizing me to enter into contracts for surveys. I expect to receive such instructions about the middle of June. Please inform me if you are practically acquainted with the use of the Solar Compass".

On the same day he wrote a similar letter to David W Myers from Michigan and added,

"Should you apply here in person and be able to fully satisfy this office of your competency, I think that I shall be able to assign to you a distrcit for survey.

"From your letter, I suppose that you have had experience in Government surveys, and that you understand the use of the lar Compass".

He was clearly concerned that prospective deputies should use the latest technology, the solar compass. On June 13 he wrote to R. J. Mendenhall.

"The surveys to be undertaken, require that a contractor should be practically acquainted with the use of Burt's improved Solar Compass; You will please advise me whether you are acquainted with the adjustment and use of the instrument; I shall then be able to give you a more definite answer, as to my being able to employ you in the public survey".

True to his predictions, by June he was ready to start employing deputies. On June 13 he sent letters to Richard Relf and E. C. Martin of Superior, H. P. Van Cleve of Long Prairie, Silas Barnard of Minneapolis, and S. W. Putnam of Little Falls, all of whom had asked for a contract. He asked them to appear in person as soon as possible.

George E. Adair, a deputy who had been employed in Michigan, seems to have been a special case. On June 15 Emerson wrote,

"(Y)ou have been recommended to me as being a competent surveyor, practically acquainted with the use of the Solar Compass. I am induced to offer you employment.

"I desire to make during the present season, all possible progress in the public surveys in this Territory on the north shore of Lake Superior; If you are willing to undertake a contract that will probably embrace both town line and subdivisions, I will assign you to as much work as you can do this season, and will, if your returns are satisfactory, give you work another season. The work that I propose to assign to you will be N.E. of Superior City, near, and coming out onto the Lake".

Rather than asking Adair to appear in person in St. Paul, Emerson wrote that if he agreed to the work he would send him instructions and a contract to Detroit. As compensation Adair would receive, "For township lines about $10 per mile will be paid and for subdivisions $6: with 8 per cent off from township lines and 7 per cent off from subdivisions for expenses of examination".

In some instances Emerson wanted to ensure that the individuals were competent surveyors. On June 17 he wrote to Josiah Knauer of Michigan that he would not be given a contract in Minnesota until his returns in Michigan had been examined. On June 29 he wrote to Mason B. Clark, "it will be necessary for you to furnish me, by satisfactory recommendations, evidence of your competency and ability to properly execute the surveys upon which you might be engaged". Even when individuals were recommended Emerson wanted to ensure competent surveyors. On June 29, for example, he wrote to J. H. McKenny, then a land officer in Chatfield, Minnesota who had recommended a Mr. Watson a prospective deputy, "I would suggest that Mr. Watson apply here in person, and bring with him such recommendations, showing his integrity and qualifications as a surveyor, as he may be able to obtain".

Letters to deputies.

Emerson made contracts with eight deputies to run meridians, parallels, and township exteriors (Figure 2) and ten deputies to subdivide townships (Figure 3). All would be completed, and reported, in the annual report for 1858.

Some, but not all, of the letters in which contracts were given to various individuals contained special instructions. On June 22 he wrote to Josias R. King, for example,

"With your contract of this date you will receive a copy of the printed General Instructions under which the surveys in this Territory are to be executed.

"You will make yourself familiar with all the requirements of the instructions, and execute your work in strict accordance therewith. You are herewith furnished with a copy of the notes of bearing trees from the section and quarter section corners of the township lines of the towns embraced in your contract, so far as this office is in possession of said notes; It is not apprehended that you will be subjected to any serious annoyance by reason of not having all of said notes; the survey being of recent date, can readily be identified without notes. Rum river passes through several townships embraced in your contract; Not having in the office plats of suvreys adjoinin your district, I am unable to state whether this river should be meandered by you or not; Should you find upon examination, and you are requested to make such examination, that the river has been meandered below, and up to your district, you will meander it through your contract, if in your opinion, it is of sufficient size to admit of being navigated by Boats or Rafts, or if it can be used for running down logs; If the river is generally of a uniform size, and not over four or five chains in width, meandering of the right bank will be sufficient. You will however establish meander posts on both sides wherever your section lines may intersect it, and frequently note its width as you proceed through each section with the meanders".

In contrast to the instructions he gave King, he wrote to Silas Barnard on June 22,

"The district embraced in your contract being plain work, there does not seem to be any necessity for further special instructions. The copy of the general instructions furnished, will be your guide in the prosecution of your survey, and it is believed that if those instructions are strictly carried out by you, the office will find your returns satisfactory".

Some contracts necessitated only a single letter communicating the fact of the contract, the area to be surveyed, and the instructions for the survey. The letter to Horatio P. Van Cleve, dated August 26, similar to the one quoted above, and letters to Ehud N. Darling, dated July 18, John O. Brunius, dated August 24, and Jacob W. Myers, dated August 28, all of which contained special instruction, are the only ones that Emerson wrote to the respective deputies about their contracts.

Other contracts, contracts for work in areas in which the deputy experienced difficulties or unfamiliar circumstances, not surprisingly, were the subject of several letters. Clearly Josias R. King faced both in his contract. Indians obviously stole some of his supplies, see above. On July 28 Emerson wrote to him, then in the field at St. Francis, commenting on the his interpretation of the General Instructions. Finally, on September he released the deputy from his contract because of the difficulties he faced, particularly "the dense undergrowth of scrub oak, vines & c". Less contoversial perhaps, on August 12 he wrote to Elias J. Martin, of Superior Wisconsin regarding how he should close the subdivision lines called for in his contract.

One contract provoked correspondence for special circumstances. On July 9 1857 Emerson wrote to Saul M. Putnam giving him a contract to survey township lines west of the Mississippi River. Putnam died before he finished his contract prompting an exchange of letters between Emerson, Putnam's brother, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, see above.

Not infrequently, while the deputies were carrying out their feildwork, Emerson received notes and plats that would help them, from Lewis in Dubuque. These he passed on to the individuals concerned. On August 15 he wrote to H. P. Van Cleve sending him the field notes for the standard parallel and guide meridians to help him in his contract subdividing townships. He was unable to send the township exteriors because Lewis still posessed them. On August 26 he wrote to Silas Barnard at Neenah, Minnesota Territory.

"Herewith I enclose you a memorandum giving the bearing trees at the qr sec: sec: & Tp: corners, on the Exterior lines of the Townships which you are at present subdividing under your contrcat dated the 22d June last".

Other contracts are the subject of several letters because of some deficiencies in the work. On October 3 1857, for example, Emerson wrote to Silas Barnard saying that the deficiencies in his survey had to be rectified before the work can be approved. Similarly, on December 30 he wrote to Elias C. Martin about deficiencies in his work. Clearly, many of these difficulties with the actual survey were not particularly serious and easily rectified.

Several letters to deputies deserve special mention because they illustrate the survey process and progress. On August 7 Emerson wrote to Milton Nye of Superior giving him a contract and instructions. He enclosed a copy of a letter he had received from Henry M. Rice urging the survey of a tract of country in the vicinity of the mouth of the Sioux Wood river. He wrote, "This point is the terminus of a Rail Road now in course of survey and in consequence thereof, a large number of settlers have already located their claims in the vicinity and urge the survey of the same". The following day Emerson wrote to Rice, "I fear that the Department will decline to authorise the desired surveys from the fact that since submitting a copy of yur letter I have received instructions forbidding any further surveys West of the 5th Guide Meridian, now being established and which is some 56 miles East of the Sioux Wood river".

That same day he wrote to Richard Relph declining to award a contract north of the fifth correction line, for which he had just awarded a contract to Milton Nye. He noted,

"As there is an Indian Reservation just North of the correction line above alluded to and on the St. Louis river, the outlines of which have not been established, I do not desire to contract for surveys North of said correction line until the outlines of the Reservation shall have been established, as the public surveys will have to close on the same".

On September 19 Emerson first mentioned the Fort Ripley military reservation in a letter to Lewis to Lewis. Two days later he wrote to George E. Brent awarding hima a contract and giving him instructions for surveying the reservation boundaries. On October 2 he communicated his actions to Washington.

On October 31 he awarded a contract to Edward D. Atwater and included instructions. On November 23 when Atwater was in the field, he wrote to the deputy, care of G. W. Sweet, Sauk Rapids,

"I have heard incidentally that you have found an error of half a mile in some one of Mr. Putnam's lines and that you were to wait for instructions from this office. I do not wish to have any delay in this work, and should you find any serious error in Mr Putnam's lines, you will at once make a new survey of any or all lines that my be found incorrect reporting to this office, for Mr. Putnam only such lines as have been correctly run".

The following day he wrote to Atwater at Watab, Minnesota referring to Atwater's letter of 20 Nov about Putnam's survey. Clearly his letter of November 23 and Atwater's letter had crossed in the mail. In the letter Emerson repeatedg what he said in his letter of the previous day.

On December 1 he awarded a contract to Richard Relf of Superior City. In the letter Emerson presumed that the St. Louis river which passed through the township was sufficiently large to be meandered and required the deputy to keep notes of the township lines and the subdivision lines in separate books. In a P. S. he wrote, "I am very desirous that the surveys hereby assigned you should be executed during the present winter". On December 31 Emerson again wrote to Relf, who was then at Twin Lake Wisconsin. Clearly Relf had accepted the assignment but had posed several questions. Emerson replied,

"1st. That you are only required to use the "Solar Compass" in running Township lines. The subdivisional line may be run with a "common magnetic compass".

2d. You are expected to complete your survey and return full and complete notes thereof by the 15th day of March 1858.

3d. You are only required to take the bearing of a settler's house or barn if visible from the line which you may be running, from a point on your line, giving the settlers name.

4th. When your notes have been received at this office they will be subjected to a strict examination, and if found in every respect correct, your work will be platted and an account in your favor stated and forwarded to the Commr of the Genl Land Office at Washington DC for payment accompanied by plats of your work, and a transcript of your notes, and if approved by that officer, a U. S. Treasury draft for the amount which may be found to be due you will be sent to you from Washington at any point which you may designate".

Conclusion

The whole range of letters sent by Emerson add richness to the story of the public land survey work in Minnesota illustrated by one such letter, the published annual report, because they provide details of the actual fieldwork that was carried out and the queries that the deputies posed while in the field. Many of the letters Emerson wrote were in response to the letters he received and thus the letters sent should be used in conjunction with the letters received (see Appendix).

Bibliography

Dodds, J. S. et al. Original Instructions governing Public Land Surveys of Iowa (Ames, Iowa, Iowa Engineering Society, 1943).

Squires, Rod. "The administration of the public land survey in the Old Northwest Territory", Dis-Closures (Fall, 1992 15-19.

Squires, Rod. "The Public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1847-1852", Dis-Closures (Winter, 1993) 10-17

Squires, Rod. "Public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1853-1857", Dis-Closures (Spring, 1993) 18-25.

Squires, Rod. "The public land survey in Minnesota, 1857-1860", Minnesota Surveyor (Spring, 1994) 16-20.

White, C. Albert. A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1982).

Appendix

Letters Received

Minnesota State Archives
Record Group: U.S. Surveyor General
Series: Letters Received
1857-1907

Each volume of Letters Received contain the actual correspondence received by the surveyor general's office during a particular year. These are the actual letters, written by different individuals on paper of different size, bound together. As in the case of most handwritten letters some of the letters are easy to read, some more difficult, and some almost impossible, particularly those written in pencil. There is no index to each volume, thus each letter has to be examined to discover who wrote it, when it was written, and the subject matter. The letters in these books were written by a variety of individuals and cover a variety of topics. A descriptive list, prepared by a member of the Minnesota Historical Society staff, gives an overview. Volume XLIV contains the letters received in 1857 by Leander Chapman, surveyor general for the Territory Northwest of the Ohio River in Detroit, Michigan the administrative predecessor to the Minnesota surveying district (see Squires, 1992). The volume also contains letters received by Charles Emerson in 1857, some sent to Detroit and some sent to St Paul. Four more volumes contain the other letters that were addressed to Emerson betwen 1858-1861, when he was replaced by William Washburn.

[The previous volumes of Letters Received, I-XLIII, will probably be found in the state archives of either Michigan or Ohio. When the Territory Northwest of the Ohio River surveying district was moved from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Detroit, Michigan in June 1845 the public land survey records relating to Ohio were transferred to the state of Ohio. When Emerson closed the Detroit office the records of the Michigan survey were transferred to the state of Michigan. However, as mentioned above, the letters received in 1857 by Leander Chapman, surveyor general at Detroit, and the letters received at Detroit and at St. Paul by Emerson in 1857 concerning the Michigan survey are in the Minnesota State Archives.]

The Letters Received by Warner Lewis, surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa, who administered the survey in Minnesota Terriitory from 1847-1857, during that decade, and from 1857-1859, during which time the field notes and plats concerning Minnesota were being transferred from Dubuque to St. Paul, almost certainly contain a great deal of useful information about the survey in Minnesota.

Letters Sent

Minnesota State Archives
Record Group: U.S. Surveyor General
Series: Letters Sent
1854-1908

The previous volumes of Letters Sent, A-I, are in the state archives of Iowa from where the survey of Minnesota Territory was administered 1847-1857.

The Letters Sent by Warner Lewis, surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa to Emerson from 1857-1859, during which time the field notes and plats were being transferred from Dubuque to St, Paul, probably contain some useful information.
Deputy Contract Instructions

Silas Barnard   June 22 "J" 360-361
Josiah R. King   June 22 "J" 359-360
Horatio P. Van Cleve June 26 "J" 363
John A. Brunius July 15 "J" 420-421
Elias C. Martin   July 30 "J" 371
Milton Nye   Aug. 07 "J" 408
A. B. Darling   Oct. 17   "J" 464-465
E. P. Abbott   Nov. 04 "J" 487-493
Richard Relf   Dec. 01 "J" 502-503
Moses K. Armstrong Dec. 30 "J" 488

Deputy Contract Instructions

William McMahan & John Ball July 03 "J" 372-373
Ehud N. Darling    July 15 "J" 384-385
Samual M. Putnam   July 16 "J" 375-377
Milton Nye     July 21 "J" 366-367
George E. Adair   July 23 "J" 368-369
Oscar Taylor    Aug. 11 "J" 416
Jacob M. Myers    Aug. 18 "J" 425-427
E. D. Atwater    Oct. 31 "J" 484-487
Oscar Taylor     Dec. 24 "J" 526-527

Figure 3. Contracts awarded for exterior, guide, and correction lines by Charles L. Emerson, 1857.

Comments on the Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Minnesota, 1847-1860

Introduction

From 1785-1812 Congress enacted legislation that prescribed the linesto be run and the corners to be monumented, thus establishing the gross morphology of the public land survey system. The legislation prescribed no standards of accuracy and no methods to correct the effects of errors introduced by the surveyor or by the curvature of the earth, however, standards and methods that would evolve later, following the experiences that could only be gained by actually running lines and monumenting corners. Most importantly perhaps, certainly significant to the modern surveyor, the legislation provided no instructions to the individual surveyor working in the field running the lines and marking the corners that were stipulated. From earliest times, then, surveyors were continually making judgments regarding sound surveying practices as they carried out the fieldwork required of them.

They were not completely without instructions, however, because Congress gave specific individuals the responsibility of supervising surveying practices. In 1785, for example, Thomas Hutchins, the Geographer of the United States, was given such responsibility when surveying the Seven Ranges in what is now Ohio with deputies from the original thirteen states. Since he was working in the field with his assistants his instructions regarding sound practices were probably verbal.

From 1796-1910 the responsibility for instructing surveyors working in the field was given to surveyors general appointed by the President to administer the surveys in a particular area (Squires,1992a,b). These individuals were authorized to make contracts with deputy surveyors for running specific lines and to supervise their work. In carrying out their responsibility these surveyors general, who possessed a great deal of autonomy, issued written instructions to each deputy. Some of this autonomy was diminished in 1836 when the office of Principal Clerk of Surveys was established in the General Land Office. Their autonomy was diminished further in 1855 when John Moore, then Principal Clerk, issued Instructions to the Surveyors General of Public Lands of the United States, for those Districts Established in and since the Year 1850; containing, also, a Manual of Instructions to Regulate the Field Operations of Deputy Surveyors, Illustrated by Diagrams (see Dodds et al, 1943 117-186; White, 1982 458-500), a publication which attempted to standardize the practice of surveying in the various surveying districts around the nation, an attempt that succeeded in 1862 when Congress made this manual part of the contract of every deputy. Even after 1862, however, the surveyors general continued issuing instructions to the deputies with whom they made contracts. They also checked the accuracy of the completed work, answered queries from deputies carrying out fieldwork and each another, and continued to report to Congress and ask for appropriations.

From 1796-1910 the various surveyors general issued numerous instructions and circulars to guide and control the work of the deputy surveyors they employed. The work of the deputued, running lines and marking corners, was based on these instructions and although individual deputies may not have adhered to high standards of surveying in following the surveyors general's instructions the modern surveyor must be aware of them. Here, I concentrate on the instructions that affected the deputy surveyor in Minnesota during the period 1847-1860, the period about which I have written previously (Squires, 1993, 1994). My purpose is very limited, firstly, to suggest where the modern surveyor must look for necessary historical information to solve some of the problems they face, and secondly, to present two letters, best called special instructions, that John Freemyer and I found in the Iowa State Archives.

Most of the instructions to the deputies comprise part of the tremendous amount of correspondence that took place between the surveyors general of Wisconsin and Iowa and the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington DC during the period when surveys in Minnesota concerned the surveyors general in Dubuque, probably from 1846 to 1860; between Charles L. Emerson, the first Minnesota surveyor general and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Emerson and Warner Lewis, the surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa, from 1857 to 1861, and between the individual deputies and Emerson (see Squires, 1994b). This material can be found in the National Archives and in the collections of the Iowa State Historical Society (Squires, 1993b) and the Minnesota Historical Society (Dis-Closures, 1991; Squires, 1994b)

First, a caveat. Many of the instructions issued by a particular surveyor general are considered only pertinent to one part of the country, perhaps even to one specific set of townships, the area for which the instructions were written. However, the individual surveyors general and the Commissioner of the General Land Office corresponded with one another. In addition, in the case of those individuals supervising the survey in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota 1857-1860 at least, some surveyors general corresponded with each other. Because the problems faced by deputies in different parts of the country and the solutions proposed by the surveyors general in the various instructions were rarely unique, the evolution of a standardized manual attests to this, I would expect the correspondence files of one surveyor general to contain information of value to surveyors in other surveying districts. I would also expect that even the most detailed instructions that were issued by one surveyor general to a deputy would have parallels in the instructions of other surveyors general to other deputies. This aspect of the history of the public land survey, the degree to which surveyors general across the nation shared both problems and solutions, remains to be investigated.

General Instructions

Under the authority given him by Congress each surveyor general issued general instructions that were applicable to all deputies working in his surveying district. However, as Dodds et al (1943, 21) argued, "It is not always clear which general set of instructions was to control but the resurveyor may assume that any survey made at a certain date was made under the latest preceding general".

From 1847-1851 the deputies working in what is now Minnesota were governed by the general instructions that George W. Jones, surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa, issued May 28, 1846 (see Dodds et al, 1943 69-79). For the next two years which instructions governed the surveys becomes less clear. George B. Sargent, surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa, issued general instructions in 1851 (see Dodds et al, 1943 102-115; White, 1982 386-399). By that time, however, the General Land Office had also issued general instructions. On March 3rd 1851 the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Justin Butterfield, approved Instructions to the Surveyor general of Oregon; being a Manual for Field Operations issued in 1851 under the signature of John M Moore, Principal Clerk of Surveys in the General Land Office (see White 434-456). In April 1851 George B. Sargent was instructed to use the manual, thus raising the question about which general instructions governed the surveys at that point in time, those issued by Sargent or those issued by the General Land Office? When Warner Lewis replaced Sargent in April, 1853, he was also instructed to use the Oregon Manual so we can assume that the deputies running the survey lines both east and west of the Mississippi 1853-1855 were controlled by that 1851 Oregon Manual.

In 1855, the 1851 Oregon Manual was republished and enlarged (see Dodds et al, 1943 116-186; White, 1982 457-500). With this publication, the General Land Office ended the practice of each surveyor general issuing his own general instructions and thus using his own judgment about sound surveying practices, although Congress did not make the 1855 Manual part of the contract of every deputy until 1862. The years between 1855-1862, when surveyors general throughout the country had been directed to use the standardized instructions but before instructions became part of the standard contract, would be an appropriate subject for investigation. Despite such intriguing questions, when Charles L. Emerson opened the Minnesota surveying office in 1857 the 1855 Manual was clearly in use. There would still be changes in the field work of the surveyors but a basic set of general instructions was in place (see White, 1982 511 ff).

For the most part, general instructions, both before and after the 1855 Manual, concerned the way in which township exteriors and subdivisions were run. There is virtually no reference to how any of the meridians and parallels are to be run. As I described in the last paper, and as Dodds et al (1943, 18-19) noted, such lines were run under special instructions.

Special Instructions

Each surveyor general supplemented the general instruction with special instructions. These special instructions were given either when he contracted with the deputy for the work or when the deputy was in the field and raised a question about completing the work. Clearly, such instructions varied considerably, depending on the particular demands of the contract. As pointed out in the last paper, the correspondence between the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa, and the deputy surveyors working in Minnesota contains important information about where and how the surveyor general expected the deputies to work and how the deputies fulfilled their contracts (Squires, 1994b). Letters that the surveyor general wrote to individual deputies contain instructions about what to survey and how to carry out their contracts and answered questions about a particular problem the deputy encountered in the field. Even after the 1855 Manual was adopted special instructions were still issued by individual surveyors general (see Dodds et al, 1943 197-364).

The following letters were found by the editor of this magazine. I was compiling an inventory of the materials relating to the Minnesota surveys that the Iowa State Historical Society possessed, John Freemyer was busy reading the materials! So, to him goes credit for "finding" these letters. Unfortunately he could not find the diagrams that were to accompany them.

Unpublished Letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Offices to the Surveyor General of Wisconsin and Iowa. (source: 35/058 Box 63. Letters, Commissioner of the General Land Office instructions, 1850-1853, Iowa State Historical Society, see also Squires, -1993b)

Filing clerk's note, "Subject double corners, standard parallels, check meridians & conical mound monuments".

General Land Office
June 28th 1852
July 19th

George B. Sargent Esqr
Surveyor General, Dubuque
Iowa

Sir,

It is desirable and highly important to obviate the necessity, wherever practicable so to do, of having double corners established on township lines except where they close on a Standard Parallel. To effect such purpose demands that the Standard Parallels should be sufficiently near to each other. A distance of four townships or twenty-four miles between such Parallels North of the Baseline, has been prescribed for the public surveys in Oregon, and wherever New Standard-parallels have to be run elsewhere, there is no reason perceived why the same regulation may not, with equal advantage, be adopted, for the purpose of avoiding the perplexity of double corners to the utmost degree practicable, restricting the necessity to those parallels. Whenever the surveys shall be undertaken north of the northern boundary of the State of Iowa, standard parallels, at the distance of four townships apart will have to be adopted for all that region of Country. How far it will now be practicable to adopt such standards elsewhere in your surveying district, if at all, is a subject of inquiry to which I would invite your immediate and most serious attention, before instructions for new surveys shall have been received by you.

Herewith transmitted are sundry copies of the Manual of Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Oregon with copies of the Illustrations connected therewith. Copies of the diagrams of the surveys made, in progress, and proposed, in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, which accompanied your late annual Report, are also herewith transmitted, and on them are indicated by red lines the "Standard Parallels" proposed for future adoption in Minnesota, at intervals of twenty-four miles, and those elsewhere are proposed for your consideration, all with a view to dispense with double corners, everywhere, to the greatest degree practicable.

It is moreover proposed, in connection with the same general views, to project an adequate number of check meridians, on which the corners of future surveys, to start therefrom, will be duly established. Such meridians, to be established prior to running the Standard Parallels, will be made to operate as a check on the true geographical position of the same - and such meridians to great extent, may also be made to govern the surveys on both sides of them, for in surveying towards a check meridian, on which the corners are preestablished, whenever the closings can be made be course lines to the preestablished corners, without at all disfiguring the surveys, double corners can therefore be avoided - nevertheless in cases where the departure from the cardinal points would be too great so to admit, double corners will be unavoidable. By these methods it is thought to restrict the absolute necessity for double corners within the smallest possible limits.

The check meridians suggested are illustrated on the accompanying diagrams. While the principle is commended to your most careful consideration, the detailed mode of applying the same may be subject to revision or amendment where you may find good reasons to suggest such.

By this programme of future operations the future surveys in your entire district, would be blocked out as to prepare for immediate operations, at any time, whatever portions of it the public necessities should first demand to be surveyed for market and enable you to pretermit (permit) whatever portions the surveying of which could best be dispensed with for the time being and all without any discomfiture whatever to the general plan as it will ultimately appear.

The public surveys when once made are, in the eye of the law, to endure for all time, but the evidences are constantly accumulating of the existence of defects in them of various kinds in different districts, but mainly as to the absence of monuments which should perpetuate them, evils for which the existing, general, prescriptions of law provide no remedy - and whatever remedies to be hereafter applied in such cases, must await further and special legislation of Congress on the subject. In view of this state of facts, it is obviously the duty of all having to do with the public land surveys strenuously and unceasingly to aim to make all future surveys fulfill their purpose for all time to come. The object is one in which the best interests of entire communities are involved - knowing as we do that uncertainty as to land marks is destructive to the peace of neighborhoods. To obviate such evils, which cast enduring odium on the authors of them, is an object worthy of assiduous care and pains needed to accomplish the same, and such as it is believed will ever receive your most conscious and hearty cooperation to accomplish. The perpetuation of corner boundaries by means of mound monuments formed the subject of a special communication dated 25th 9th inst. That instruction is designed to be of universal application in your district wherever mounds have to be erected.

Before your deputy surveyors depart for the field of duty, it is deemed proper that you should require each of them to construct in your presence a monument of the character required in those instructions as a pattern to which, when the work is returned, their oath is to declare that the mounds they have created conform.

I am very respectfully
Your Obt Servant
John Wilson
Acting Commissioner

Unpublished Letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Offices to the Surveyor General of Wisconsin and Iowa, part of the collection (source: 35/058 Box 63. Letters, Commissioner of the General Land Office instructions, 1850-1853, Iowa State Historical Society, Squires, 1993b).

Filing clerk's note, "Instructions for surveys in Minnesota West of the River".

General Land Office
May 16, 1853

Warner Lewis Esq
Surveyor General
Dubuque, Iowa

Sir,
The surveys in Minnesota, West of Mississippi River, (with the exception of those in the reduced Military reserve at Fort Snelling, concerning which you are specially instructed in my letters of the 6th & 13th inst.) will count from the Arkansas Base, and from the Fifth Principal Meridian in continuation of those in Iowa; - the townships, therefore, will all count, North of the Base Line, and the ranges West of the Fifth Principal Meridian.

The boundary parallel of 43 30 will be the great surveying base for Minnesota, and is understood to have been prepared accordingly to be such, by having the corners for townships, sections, and quarter sections planted theron, in advance.

Those surveys will be affected according to the method prescribed for the public surveys in Oregon, as required by law.

First: The Standard parallels, or correction lines will be due East and West lines, run at every fourth township, twenty four miles apart.

Second: The township, section, and quarter sectional corners are to be planted on those correction lines at the time when surveyed.

Third: The corners for the townships, sections and quarter sections, which will close from below on the correction line, will constitute a double set of corners on such lines, and every where else double corners are inadmissible.

It seems to be advisable that a Guide Meridian (which we will call number One) should be run from the Northern boundary of Iowa to the Mississippi River, starting from the dividing line between ranges seventeen and eighteen West, so as to strike the Mississippi river somewhere in the neighborhood of Fort Snelling. Another guide meridian (number two) should start from the boundary line, where the same is intersected by the line between ranges twenty-four and twenty-five West.

It seems also advisable that another guide meridian (number three) should be started from the said boundary from a point that would certainly clear the Mississippi River when extended to the Crow Wing River and beyond.

The Hon, Mr. Sibley in his letter of 20th March last, (a copy of which is herewith furnished for your information,) represents the tendency of the settlements to be, "along the valleys of the Minnesota and other rivers, principally, so that the entire population up to the present period would be embraced East of a line drawn North and South to intersect the mouth of the Waraju river a tributary of the Minnesota, formerly St. Peters, river. The other lands which require to be surveyed and brought into market with the least practicable delay, are those lying along the West bank of the Mississippi from the line of Iowa to the Crow Wing river, and along the streams emptying into the former river. The valleys of the Root, Cannon, Minnesota, Crow and other rivers, are rapidly filling up with population, and require the first attention of the Land Office."

It is believed that the guide Meridian, number three starting from the Iowa boundary from the corner between ranges No. 31 & 32 would certainly be found to run to the West of the Mississippi river, (however imperfect our present maps may be found) and secure all the important points without the hazard of interfering with the Indian reservation at the Waraju.

Until you should be in possession of information which would lead to other conclusions, you will consider yourself instructed, first, to enter into contracts for running guide meridians 1 & 2, from the starting points suggested, the former to the Mississippi river, or terminating at the southern boundary of the special survey of the reduced military reservation in the neighborhood of Fort Snelling should it be found to strike the same before reaching the Mississippi, and the latter terminating at the Mississippi, to regulate the survey in the valley of Crow river, and distant forty two miles from the former.

On these guide Meridians, the township, section, and quarter section corners are to be established after the methods prescribed for the Oregon surveys; and such meridians to regulate the subsequent surveying operations, are to be run with the aid of the Burt's Solar Compass, and with the greatest possible care and precision chained with great accuracy, and the corner boundaries, whether mounds or posts, established and identified in the best and most enduring manner. The township surveys will start from the appropriate correction line as their practical base, and be closed on the one above it. The distance to which any one correction line is to be run out, at a single operation under a contract, is to be determined by circumstances. It may be run to the extent of one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven townships according to the locality of the body of land to be reached, and which it is desired to township and subdivide from it, as the practical base. Neither is it indispensably necessary to run the exteriors of all the four townships in width between any two correction lines at a single operation under any one contract. The township exteriors may be extended either one, two, or three townships north of a correction line leaving the residue for a future operation.

The law allows five dollars per mile for surveying in Minnesota, the sectioning will be procured to be done for less, but the average price of the whole must not exceed five dollars.

It is all important that the guide meridians 1 & 2 should be started as soon as possible.

The starting of the correction lines must be so managed as to provide for the townshipping and subdividing of the lands in those special localities where the settlements most abound, so as to accommodate as far as we can, the greatest number of settlers, at the earliest period, making the existing appropriation available to the greatest practicable extent.

Starting from any township corner on a standard parallel, or correction line previously established, the township, or townships on the north, and between it and the correction line, above, will be laid off, on the Oregon method, according to diagram A.

The contracts for township exteriors, should not exceed eight townships, and it is always desirable that the sectional surveys should be established by another Deputy than he who run the township exterior, to act as a check on the work, and such rule must be observed wherever practicable.

The sectional surveys are to be made according to diagram B and the contracts for sectional surveys should not embrace more than four townships. By such a subdivision of labor amongst your Deputies it is hoped you will be able to meet the public expectation in accomplishing the greatest amount of work within the earliest practicable time. The correction line may start from any fourth township corner station on the Meridian, and be run either to the East of it or to the West, according to circumstances so as to embrace the locality which it is particularly desired to have townshipped in advance of the great body of the surveys; and the facility thus afforded for so doing, will enable your Deputies to operate simultaneously on a number of township surveys, however detached from each other; and hence, by a conscientious observance by each deputy of all the principles prescribed, the whole work (detached as it may be in the first instance) ought and will ultimately be found to harmonize and fit together, with the entire connected surveys have been completed in the Territory.

In prairie regions where mounds have to be constructed to signalize the corner boundaries, it is all important that the surveys be made before the frost set in, otherwise the mounds will not endure.

On the map herewith transmitted will be found laid down, the lines between the ceded and unceded lands in Minnesota, and the reservations of lands allotted to certain Indian tribes, with explanatory notes on a separate paper. This map is a portion of Dr. Owen's geological chart of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota reduced at this office and revised by Nicollet's large chart of the Hydrologic basin of the Upper Mississippi, and, on this map, are laid down the guide Meridians No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, as alluded to in the foregoing - but, it is to be remarked, that the foregoing instructions were prepared from a map which showed the guide Meridian No 1. would strike the Mississippi somewhere in the vicinity of Fort Snelling, - the present map, however, is believed to be more accurate and shows that the striking point on the Mississippi will be much to the eastward of the Fort. Since the instructions were prepared, but before completion, the utility has suggested itself , of another guide Meridian, forty-two miles to the east of that marked No. 1. It had previously been designated to omit the same from consideration of economy only, but, for the purpose of ensuring greater accuracy, binding the surveys yet more effectually together, and limiting error, it has been concluded to propose another guide meridian, making four East of the Waraju, and which will be known respectively, as guide Meridians No. 1, 2, 3, & 4.

It is designed that these guide Meridians shall be double chained, one set of chainmen following the other, such operation is likely to increase the expense, but it is hoped that you will be able so to arrange your contracts, as to bring such expense within the legal maximum, and on this subject you are requested, as soon as possible, to advise this office.

By the same mail which will convey this communication, are forwarded, two packages containing each seven copies of the Manual of instructions prescribed for the government of the Oregon Surveys, and also a large roll containing a number of copies of three diagrams, which accompanied the same and by which yourself and deputies will be governed. The same roll contains the maps herein referred to, on which are laid down the four guide Meridians.

I am very respectfully
Your Obt Srvt.
John Wilson
Commissioner

Conclusion

The deputy surveyors who ran the lines and monumented the corners of the public land survey in Minnesota, 1847-1861, were guided by the general and special instructions issued by the Commissioners of the General Land Office, the surveyors general of Wisconsin and Iowa, and the surveyors general of Minnesota. The modern surveyor needs to pay attention to these instructions which are to be found scattered through the correspondence files of the individuals concerned. The origins of these instructions will be found in the different surveying practices throughout the country.

Bibliography

Dis-Closures, “ (?1991)

Dodds, J.S. et al (eds) Original Instructions Governing Public Land Surveys of Iowa (Ames, Iowa Engineering Society, 1943)

Squires, Rod, “The annual reports of the surveyors general” Dis-Closures (Winter, 1992a) 14-15.

Squires, Rod, “The administration of the public land survey in the Old Northwest Territory”, Dis-Closures (Fall, 1992b) 15-20.

Squires, Rod “Public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1853-1857”, Dis-Closures (Spring, 1993a) 18-24.

Squires, Rod, “A preliminary inventory of documents”, Dis-Closures (Fall, 1993b) 19

Squires, Rod, “The public land survey in Minnesota, 1857-1860”, Minnesota Surveyor (Spring, 1994a 16-20.

Squires, Rod, “Letters sent by surveyor general Charles L. Emerson, 1857”, Minnesota Surveyor (Fall, 1994b) 20-26

White, C. Albert, A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1982).

The public land survey in Minnesota 1862-1865

Introduction

In March, 1861 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. Succeeding James Buchanan, he replaced the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Joseph S. Wilson, with James M. Edmunds and the surveyor general of Minnesota, Charles L. Emerson, with William D. Wasburn. For the next five years, until 1865, the man who later became a leading entrepreneur in the flour milling business in Minneapolis, directed the work of the deputy surveyors in Minnesota. It was a difficult time. The nation was occupied with a Civil War and some American - Indian bands of Minnesota became hostile to white settlers. Preoccupied with a Civil War Congress appropriated less money for the public land survey than previously. As a consequence the numbers of contracts awarded for carrying out fieldwork and the number of office staff in St. Paul were both sharply reduced. At the same time Washburn’s duties became more onerous a fact that he mentioned in each of his four annual reports to Commissioner Edmunds. His duties were increased by federal legislation that multiplied the ways in which land titles could be alienated and by legislation designed “to reduce the expenses of survey and sale of public lands” (12 Stat. 409).

In 1860, Congress had extended the provisions of legislation that had been enacted ten years earlier, thus allowing the state of Minnesota to acquire title to the swamplands within its boundaries (12 Stat. 3). Two years later, in 1862, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation that allowed both states and private individuals to acquire title to land, firstly the Homestead Act (12 Stat. 392) and secondly, the Agricultural Colleges and Mechanic Arts Act, also known as the Morrill Act (12 Stat. 503). These three acts increased the amount of work for the office staff, in part because the Swampland Act added additional duties, see Addendum, and in part because the Homestead and Agricultural and Mechanic Arts acts created an increased demand for land. In addition, Congress enacted legislation requiring all surveying contracts be approved by the Commisssioner of the General Land Office, a requirement that was to delay all fieldwork. The same legislation also specified that the instructions described in the 1855 Manual were part of all contracts.

Annual Report October 19, 1861 (Figure 1)

In his first annual report Washburn notes that all of the contracts awarded under his predecessor, Charles L. Emerson, had been completed and that the office, with a reduced staff, had been occupied in transcribing field notes, making plats and preparing descriptive lists. He was most concerned with the size of his office staff that was occupied with work “connected with the grant of swamp lands to the State” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 608).

He writes that he had only made two contracts since he arrived, both for exterior lines but notes that the new boundaries of the Fond du Lac reservation on the St. Louis River, which had been surveyed by the General Land Office but subsequently changed by a survey carried out by the Indian Office, had been laid out on the state maps and townships plats. He recommends an ambitious surveying program for the following year,

the extension of the 3d guide meridian some 54 miles north, connecting same with the independent meridian east, by the establishment of the 6th and 7th connexion lines; the running out the township lines of a portion of this section and the subdivision of some 54 townships therein; also the extension of the 10th standard parallel from the 4th to the 3d guide meridian, with the running of township lines between those guides and the 9th and 10th standards, and the subdivision of about 34 townships within the same, and immediately west of the 4th guide ( U.S.Congress, Senate, 1861, 607).

As justification he notes,

I consider the foregoing section of country as calling for the establishment of the public surveys therein as early as practicable, it being of great importance to the public interest with respect to their sale, in consequence of its embracing the principal portion of the pine timber land at present unsurveyed in the State, (so far as explored) and in which the extensive lumbering operations in the State are now being carried on. This land being valuable principally for its pine timber, its importance in that regard, from the depradations that are yearly being committed upon it, is rapidly decreasing: wheras by extending the lines of the public survey over it as early as possible, I have no doubt - and I speak from personal knowledge as well as from the evidence of others interested in and thoroughly acquainted with the lumber trade of Minnesota - large tracts would be taken up immediately if the lands were brought into the market or open to entry (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 607).

He calls for subdividing townships in the northwest part of the state, “as being ... necessary to meet the demands of various settlements which are springing up in the vicinity of the important and much travelled route to the Red river and the northwest” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 607), and for surveys in the southwest of Minnesota, “in consequence of the advance of settlement for agricultural purposes” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 607). He asks for, “the establishment of a check of township lines between the Iowa line and the first standard parallel and from the 5th guide to the western boundary, with the subdivision of about 35 townships in same and the check immediately north” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 608).

He had not carried out any examinations of the surveys that had been completed which were only required, if “the evidence of the notes returned, or from the information from other sources, there may be doubt as to the faithful execution of any of the work contracted for and reported as complete” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 608). However, he had sent one of his clerks to inspect the work of the deputies “in consequence of a majority of contrcators being newly appointed deputies, who, although men of experience in their profession and fully competent to perform the work, had never had a contract on the public survey” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 608). He stated,

It is found, from the inspection of the work done in the southwestern part of the State, that, with one exception, it has been executed in the most correct and faithful manner, and in strict accordance with the requirements of the surveying instructions: the exception consists in the incomplete construction of some of the mounds examined in one contract, the lines themselves being correctly run” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 608).

Although he writes that he intends to withold part of the particular deputy’s contract in order to examine the mounds more thoroughly and to reconstruct them where necessary. He is most concerned with such errors and argues that all should be completely inspected, “in order to insure a faithful and strict adherence on the part of the contractors to their duty, that they should feel their work will be closely and critically inspected, and that before their final accounts are passed” (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1861, 608).

Annual report October 10, 1862 (Figure 2)

In an examination of the previous season’s work Washburn’s agents had seen some corners “perpetuated by mounds, trenches, and pits had not been made in strict accordance with the requirements of the “Manual of Surveying Instructions” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 83). He reports that he had forced the deputies to correct the mistakes at their own expenses and argues, once again, that examining all surveys befor paying the deputies was “the best and indeed only security on the part of the government for the faithful execution of the work contracted for” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 83).

He writes, “(t)he appropriations for continuing the public land surveys in this State during the season of 1862 was so limited an amount as to render it advisable to make but two contracts, estimated to cover the whole sum ($5,000)” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 83) The start of both of these subdivision surveys, one on the north side of the Minnesota River adjoining the Upper Sioux Agency and one north and west of the Gull Lake Reservation. was delayed because of the Indian uprising. One party, headed by Brockman and Meyer two deputies from New Ulm, were delayed from going into the field because they were eligible to be drafted. Although their supplies, camp equipment, and even their instruments were lost on the attack on New Ulm, Washburn notes the delay probably saved their lives. The other surveying party, headed by George B. Wright and Isaac A. Banker started into the field and reached Fort Ripley with rumors of “troubles with the numerous bands of Chippewas .... They reached the fort by forced march most opportunely, as the troops then stationed there were so few in number that the addition of sixteen to their forces was most welcome” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84). Washburn writes,

Messrs. Wright and Banker, with their assistants, were compelled to remain there for some time, and then returned to this place and disbanded their party, it being useless to expect safely to prosecute their surveys in the immediate neighborhood of an excited , if not really hostile, tribe of savages” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84).

Because of the circumstances, “(i)n both these cases the contractors have, of course, suffered great loss and damage while endeavoring to carry out the contracts assigned them; they claim their losses should be made good to them” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84), Washburn reports that he has forwarded vouchers and affidavits for compensation for the loss and has extended both of the contracts for 1863, “hoping that by the opening of 1863 no further danger need be apprehended in the prosecution of our surveys from any Indians that may, by that time, be permitted to continue with in the limits of the State” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84). He writes, probably with some exaggeration,

I have, therefore, deemed it unneccessary to extend the surveys, at present west of the established lines, as no demand for land can be looked for in that section, or hardly, indeed, in any part of the State, for actual settlement, until the country is assured that the whole savage tribes have been thoroughly and forever expelled and driven beyond its border. That such a policy is absolutely necessary, unless the larger portion of this fine State is to be left to wilderness, and the settlement confined to the line of the Mississippi, there can be no doubt. The fearful scenes that have been enacted within the past four weeks in the interior settlements, and the dreadful consequences to be seen on every hand, must prevent all emigration to a State even with the unsurpassed agricultural advantages and well-known salubrious climate of Minnesota, until, at least, all future danger of a repetition of the horrors of which it has so lately been the scene has been placed beyind a possibility of occurrence (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84).

He recommends surveying in the northern part of the state since he envisages “no difficulties ... but what can be settled by treaty” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84). In addition the area is “most essential to the public interest in tending to save the public lands from depredations” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 84). While expressing considerable annoyance that he was responsible for examining and controlling trespass on the timber lands, he writes, as previous surveyor generals had written,

The district of country is principally valuable for pine timber, of which timber large quantities are yearly being carried off, without any benefit to the government, and leaving the land completely worthless. By its early subdivision, with an efficient system of protections against trespaser, sales will undoubtedly be made, for the lumber must be had, and men will always be found to cut it, by an honest purchase from the government, if the risk is made too great to secure it otherwise. (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 85)

As these surveys are not predicated on the wants of settlers, either in prospective or present, but only as a means of enabling the government to dispose of valuable timber by a sale of land on which it grows, and from which it will most assuredly be taken by those engaged in supplying the lumber markets, and who are not likely to be deterred from the business by apprehending difficulties with the Indians” (U.S. Congress, House, 1862, 85)

Finally, he notes that the Commissioner of the General Land Office had sent him instructions regarding how Minnesota would select the swamp and overflowed lands under the act of March 12, 1860. He reports a considerable delay compiling the selection lists required because a question, the first of many questions regarding such lands, as to whether marshland was swampland and hence could be selected as part of the grant.

Annual Report, September 25, 1863 (Figure 3)

Washburn reports that very little fieldwork had taken place during the year. George B. Wright and Isaac A. Banker had completed two fractional townships on the Mississippi and they were currently in the field. He had cancelled the contract of Brockman and Meyer because the area “has not been sufficiently free from danger from the Indians, as to render it safe to prosecute the surveys the present season” (U.S. Congress, House, 1863, 64-5). In accordance with the recommendations he had made previous year he had made two contacts for townships valuable for pine timber. He notes, however, “those lands are of the most difficult character to survey, as well as difficult of access, and distant from any point where supplies can be procured” (U.S. Congress, House, 1863, 65). In these contracts he thought it necessary to include both subdivisions and township and other principal lines. He thus removed a check on the accuracy of the survey.

He reiterates the necessity of surveying the timber areas in Minnesota but does not make specific recommendations as to particular locality writing, somewhat optimistically,

The duties connected with depradations of the public lands have occupied a large portion of my attention. Extensive examinations have shown that trespasses have been committed, not only on the public lands, but also in other localities, for railroad ties and for cordwood. As, however, parties now find that all such depradations will be closely watched, and the penalty imposed being sufficiently heavy to make them unprofitable, I have no doubt they will in a great measure be discontinued, and the land required for such purposes honestly bought from the government (U.S. Congress, House, 1863, 65).

He recommends some subdivisions of land adjacent to the Minnesota River because he is assured that as soon as “apprehension from further Indian troubles is removed, there will be a great demand for those valuable farming lands” (U.S. Congress, House, 1863, 65).

His greatest concern is with the reduction in his office staff because of the smallness of appropriations. He flatly states that he probably will not be able to keep up with the field work, most of which involves preparing swamp list selections for the state.

Annual Report, October 10, 1864 (Figure 4)

Washburn reports that a large amount of pine timbered lands on streams tributary to the Mississippi had been surveyed.

This region is represented almost valueless, except for its trimber, and the diffiuclties and cost of prosecuting the surveys much greater than was anticipated, and it was by the strictest economy and the most energetic prosecution of the work that the deputies were enabled to complete their surveys without loss, even at the advanced rates allowed them specially for this work” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 134)

On June 29, the Commissioner of the General Land Office had instructed Washburn to survey the boundaries of the Sioux Reservation on the Minnesota River, as required by an act passed by Congress April 8 placing all reservation boundaries under the control of the General Land Office (13 Stat. 39). One contract had been let but there had been a delay in the actual fieldwork because of “danger from small roving bands of Indians” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 134). The deputies had been stopped once because of a disturbance but since then had prosecuted their work “under the protection of a guard furnished by the military authorities” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 134). Such insecurity caused Washburn not to let any contracts for the rest of the reservation and he writes that he may not let them next year either.

He had awarded one contract to run exteriors in the northeast part of the state, during the year and deputies had subdivided eight townships that had not been authorized by Congress. He writes, “(t)he reason for diverting a portion of the fund from the survey of land valuable for pine timber, for which purpose mainly the appropriation was asked, was to bring into market a tract of country containing rich deposits of iron” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 135). He also subdivided land that would probably fall within the limits of the grant of land to railroad from St Paul to Lake Superior, to “enable the company to make their selections and open the land to settlement, in anticipation of the early completion of the road” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 135).

Although he continues to ask for appropriations to survey pine lands, he laments, “I have been unable thus far to contract with deputies in the State, who are acquainted with the character of the work, for surveys in the pine region, at the rates fixed in your annual instructions” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 134). He reports that he is in contact with surveyors in Dubuque who would carry out the surveys early in the Spring, 1865. He continued to examine timber operations adjacent to public lands, in areas where timber depradation were thought to have occurred. Only in a few instances had trespass occurred, mostly caused “through mistake or ignorance of the exact location of the lines of the public survey” (U.S. Congress, House, 1864,135).

The settlement of these cases has been delayed, owing to the fact that for the past two seasons the low stage of water has prevented lumbermen generally from getting their logs to market: consequently they have been unable to pay stumpage and expenses imposed by the government, and I have not deeened it expedient to seize the logs until driven to market. (U.S. Congress, House, 1864, 135)

The office had completed the swampland lists required, covering almost 1.3 million acres except for those during the present season.

Conclusion

Washburn was replaced April 1 by Levi Nutting

Addendum

The Swampland Acts

In 1849 Congress granted the state of Louisiana “the whole of those swamps and overflowed lands which may be, or are, found unfit for cultivation” (12 Stat. 3). The following year the same provisions were extended to Arkansas and other states then in the Union, some twelve in all (9 Stat. 519). Finally, in 1860, Congress extended the provisions of the swampland acts to Minnesota and Oregon, both of which had become states after 1850 (12 Stat. 3). “The swamp-land acts have been the subject of much complaint of fraud, actual fraud, and deceit. Their execution has been attended with great difficulty, and list certified thereunder have required constant and most exact scrutiny” (Donaldson , 1884 , 220). Minnesota, like Michigan and Wisconsin, decided to use the field notes of the deputy surveyors to make the selection of such lands. The clerks in the surveyor general’s office made lists of swamplands that were then transmitted to the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary approved the list, sent it to the governor of Minnesota and issued patents to the land. The requirements of the swampland act placed a considerable burden on the surveyors general, who supervised listing swamp selections, to make accurate identification of lands that were to be conveyed to the state in a timely manner. The surveyors general complained about “the extreme difficulties involved in determining whether land was swamp or overflowed on the basis of the surveyors’ notes, which proved to be defective, far from complete, and in many instances fraudulent” (Gates, 1968 326). In addition, the legislation of 1860 placed a limit on the amount of time that the state had to select swampland. Congress stated,

the selection to be made from lands already surveyed in each of the States, including Minnesota and Oregon, ... shall be made within two years from the adjoinment of the legislature of each State at its next session after the date of this act, and, as to all lands hereaftyer surveyed, within two years from such adjoinment, at the next session, after notice by the Secretary of the Interior to the governor of the State that the surveys have been completed and confirmed (12 Stat. 3).

Bibliography

Donaldson, Thomas, Public Domain (Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1884)

Gates, Paul Wallace, History of Public Land Law Development (Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968)

Orefield, Nathaniel Orefield, Federal Land Grants to the States with special reference to Minnesota (University of Minnesota, Studies in the Socila Sciences No. 2, 1915)

United States, Senate, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1861, S.exec.doc.1. Serial 1117

United States, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for
1862, H.exec.doc. 1. Serial 1157

United States, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for
1863, H.exec.doc. 1. Serial 1182

United States, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for
1864, H.exec.doc. 1. Serial 1220

George B. Wright deputy surveyor, 1862-1865

Introduction

In Minnesota at least 250 deputies, working individually and in partnership with others, set monuments and posts and ran lines to create a public land survey net. All of them worked under contract with the federal government, contracts which specified what area they were to survey, how they should carry out their work (the general and special instructions), when they should complete it, and what compensation they would receive. Some of these contracts, and other information about the work of the deputies, can be found in a set of letterbooks titled “United States Surveyor General; Letters Sent” which contain copies of the letters sent by the surveyor general of Minnesota to various individuals involved in the public land survey. Some of these letters, which are located in the State Archives at the Minnesota History Center, were the subject of a previous paper (Squires, 1994). A large portion of this correspondence consists of letters in which the surveyor general addressed issues raised in the letters he received from deputies in the field, letters that were filed in a set of letterbooks titled “United States Surveyor General; Letters Received” (see also Squires, 1994 Addendum). Neither of these two letterbooks contain all of the correspondence that passed between the various individuals involved in the public land survey but together they comprise an important source of information for anyone interested in the public land survey. For the modern surveyor, seeking to reconstruct the monuments and lines that comprised the original survey net, they contain information about the contracts and problems faced by the deputies. For the historical geographer, seeking to document the progress of the public land survey, they contain information that helps describe and explain why the survey spread to one area or in a particular direction. For anyone interested in the surveying careers of individuals, genealogists or our esteemed editor for example, these letterbooks are invaluable. Here and in the next paper, I describe what these letterbooks record of the career of George B. Wright, who surveyed in west-central Minnesota during the period 1861-1872, and who was featured in a previous article (Dis-Closures Summer, 1992).

George Wright was merely one of many deputy surveyors who left a paper trail, in the form of contracts and other correspondence which we can read, and an actual surveying trail, in the form of the points and lines which the modern surveyor must follow. Both of these trails must be followed in order to understand how the public land survey was carried out. Some of the difficulties faced by the modern surveyor following the surveying trail may, in fact, reflect the difficulties faced by the deputy surveyor during fieldwork and the manner in which the surveyor general directed him to overcome them. While the illustrious status that some of the surveyors achieved subsequent to their surveying career may be of vicarious interest to the modern surveyor those individuals whose career involved surveying under different circumstances, and hence under various instructions from the surveyor general, are possibly the most revealing in terms of the evolution of the public land survey. Those individuals that were involved in running parallels, guide meridians, township exteriors, state and Indian reservation boundaries, as well as subdividing townships for example, or those who worked in both the wooded and essentially treeless parts of the state, or those who were employed before and after new technologies, such as the solar compass, were introduced. In addition, there are individuals who were employed as deputy surveyors, as examiners, and as timber agents, and who were thus subject to the spectrum of opportunities and problems faced by the public land surveyor.

Wright is noteworthy because he was a prolific surveyor being involved in surveying eighty-five full and fractional townships, subdividing almost two million acres, mostly in west-central Minnesota (Figure 1). He surveyed thirty-two townships on his own and the remainder in partnership with four other individuals who held surveying contracts before and after being associated with him. He also surveyed the exterior lines of several townships. His career working for the federal government can be divided into three periods. In three years, 1862-1865, Wright surveyed in partnership with two individuals, Isaac A. Banker and Thomas B. Walker (Figure 2); for the next three years, 1866-1869, he worked on his own; and for the following two years he worked first with George G. Beardsley and then with Beardsley and Olsen C. Miles. Here, I focus on the letters received by the surveyor general from Wright and his partners and the letters sent in return during the first of these periods, when he was working with Banker, who worked alone in eastern Minnesota both before and after his partnership with Wright, and Walker, who worked alone and with other partners after his association with Wright (Figure 3). Unfortunately, some of the letters received have not been kept so that we can only guess, by the surveyor general’s answer, what Wright was asking.

George B. Wright, the early years

George started his surveying career as a chainman on a railroad survey in Vermont (Freemyer, 1992). He moved permanently to Minnesota in 1857 and by 1861 was working in the central lakes region of the state. Although his first contract was not made until 1862 he was clearly a surveyor before then. In a letter dated January 30, 1858 Charles Emerson, the surveyor general of Minnesota, wrote to Wright, then in Minneapolis,

Yours of the 28th inst. calling my attention to an error in the establishment of the quarter post on line between secs 13 & 14 in T 116 N. R 23 W. and asking whether such error can be corrected has this day been received and in reply I have to state that the error in question can be corrected but it will be necessary for you to comply with the following requirements before any action can be taken by this office in the matter.

You will first obtain from the Register of the US Land Office at Minneapolis a certified list of the lands in secs 13 & 14 which have been sold. Should it be found that all or any part of the land in those sections has been sold then it will be necessary for you to obtain from the owners of such lands, a written consent, stating their entire willingness to have their quarter post changed from its present position and placed at a point equidistant from the corners to secs 11. 12. 13 & 14. and secs 13. 14. 23 & 24. Should any owner of land in either of the sections in question (13 &14) refuse to give his consent to the removal of the quarter post, said quarter post must remain at the present point (in the Lake) and those who have purchased land by the plat on file in the Land Office at Minneapolis must abide by said purchase.

Should no land have been sold in either of the sections, then upon application to this office, I will authorize a duly appointed Depy. Sury. of this office to execute a re-survey of the line between sections 13 & 14, but it is to be distinctly understood that should a resurvey of the line in question be authorized all expense therefor will have to be paid by the parties applying for the same.

When you shall have obtained the properly certified list of sold lands in the sections in question from the land office at Minneapolis and obtained the written consent of parties owning those lands, to a change of the quarter post, you will forward them to this office, and I will take such stps in he matter as may be deemed proper.

In a post script, Emerson noted, “The written consent of partied owning lands must be signed in the presence of a Justice of the Peace and Notary Public who must attach his certificate” (Letters Sent vol. J p.551). The letter would indicate that Wright was involved in surveying but his exact status is unknown. Another letter from Emerson to Wright, dated May 27, 1859 indicates that Wright had sent a “Memorandum of Meanders” to the surveyor general, perhaps on May 25, and the surveyor general returned it annotated with the information Wright had requested (Letters Sent vol. K p.347) is equally ambiguous. No further information exists.

May 22, 1862 Washburn, newly appointed surveyor general of Minnesota wrote to Wright,

In the subdivisional survey executed in 1861 by Messrs Wellman & Smoot under a contract dated July 13, 1861, certain deficiencies have been found & reported by the Inspector in his examination of same which are required to be made good. The contractor declining to return to the field for the purpose of completing the work & having confidence in your ability and knowledge of the character of the work required in the public surveys, I have appointed you a Deputy of the Office & have to instruct you to proceed without delay to the Townships embraced in the above contract, diagrams of which are herewith furnished you for the purpose of thoroughly completing the work improperly and inefficiently performed by the contractors.

The Inspector reports that the posts are poorly set not properly charred, with no separate charred stake or charcoal trenches, the mounds poorly built narrow and & made with sods, not of proper length or depth, & pits small and irregular. These deficiencies you are expected to have made good, so that the corners shall be in accordance with the requirement of the printed General Instructions, and the special instructions respecting the building of mounds (with which you are acquainted and under which the surveys were required to be made.

You will keep and return to this Office full notes of all the work you find it necessary to do in carrying pout these instructions, as also a diary of the time you are engaged in this duty from the day you leave for the field.

Your compensation for this service will be $3 per day, with the actual and necessary expenses of yourself and assistants, & I would expressly urge upon you the closest economy in all the expenses connected with the work entrusted you, consistent with a due regard to the proper execution of the corrections required.

You will be furnished by this Office with the necessary camp equipment including tent & also a small compass to assist you in tracing the lines, all of which you will take due care of & return here on completion of the work (Letters Sent vol. L pp.218-219).

This letter is a little puzzling. Wellman and Smoot had received a contract July 13, 1861 to subdivide T 105 N R 39, 40, 41, and 42 W; and T 106 N R 39 and 40 W and to run a small portion of several standard parallels, 1st-6th, from the 6th guide to Minnesota’s western boundary. Clearly, Emerson wanted Wright to correct part of their survey but I cannot find any record of him doing so.

George B. Wright and Isaac A. Banker

Wright received his first government contract with Isaac Banker on July 23, 1862. Under the instructions contained in the contract, although unfortunately not present in the letterbook, the two were to survey twelve townships including any islands in the Mississippi River. In addition, they were to survey one township under special instructions. On August 11, 1862 Washburn wrote to Wright and Banker saying that the Commissioner of the General Land Office had approved their contract,

The contract requiring that the survey shall be made in strict accordance with the requirements of the “Manual of Surveying instructions” and your experience on the public surveys in the State renders any special instructions from this office as unnecessary except in the case of Tps 136 N Rs. 25 & 26 W. Where the Mississ. River forms the Southern Bdy of the Tp and prevents the prescribed mode of subdividing being followed.

In these instances you will commence your survey by running a random line East from the corner of Secs 18 & 19 on the W. Boundary to the corner of 13 & 24 on the East Bdy. And correct the same back West setting your 1/4 and sec. posts at 40.0 & 80. chs. respectively. Then continue your survey running your line North and South from the center line commencing at the corner of sec. 13.14.23 & 24.

You are herewith furnished with diagrams of the Tps to be subdivided, showing the establishment of the section and meander corners & the fractional distances on the Tp boundaries & also the general topography as described in the notes of same.

You will observe that the Western tier of sections in Tp. 136 N R 25 W. Is less than 20 chs instead of 80 chs or thereabouts: this is occasioned by an error having been made in the survey of the 1st Stand. Par. and continued North of the 8th Stand; upon the establishment of which the 3 Guide Mer. North of the Mississippi river by this office the error was corrected.

You are furnished with blank field books in which to return your notes in the form and with the (illegible) required in the “Manual” and you are also required to return with these all the original notes or memoranda actually taken by you in the field.

I would call your attention especially to the careful marking of your bearing trees, making the cuts deep & clear so that no difficulty may be found in establishing a corner after the loss of the post by rotting or otherwise (Letters Sent, vol. L pp.245-246).

The two deputies would complete their work in April, 1864 almost two years after they were awarded the contract. Clearly Wright was the “senior” in this partnership. A letter from Banker, dated September 22,1862, asked that any United States draft for their work be assigned to Wright (Letters Received, 1862 p.217).

Their work was interrupted by the hostilities of 1862, a fact that the surveyor general noted in his annual report for that year (Squires, 1995). This interruption caused hardship to the partners, who led a surveying party of sixteen into the field, and they requested compensation for their financial losses and an extension of their contract. Their requests prompted an exchange of letters between them, the surveyor general, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington. On October 20 1862, the surveyor general, William Washburn, wrote to Wright and Banker telling them that the Department of the Interior would not consider their claims for damages sustained by them as they were proceeding to the field because of the Indian outbreak. He warned that, “a renewal or extension of your present contract can only be granted on the express understanding that all such claims are to be withdrawn” stating,

Should you therefore be desirous of having the time for the execution of your surveys extended until the spring of 1863, you will please inform me in writing of your relinquishment of all claim for loss and damages made by you under your report and account of Sept. 6th 1862, and that no claim will hereafter be preferred on account of same (Letters Sent vol. L p.263).

As a result, on November 25, 1862, Wright wrote to Banker asking him to sign a relinquishment and forward it to Washburn in St. Paul. In a note on the rear of the letter is the comment “Forwards relinquishment of his claim with G.B.Wright for any damage sustained by them while proceeding to execute their contract in consequence of Indian troubles” (Letters Received 1862 p.242).

The contract did not progress without questions from Wright. On November 25, 1862 he complained,

I observe that the “General Instructions” give no direction in regard to planting of “closing” 1/4 Sec. corners on the standard parallels. They do not occur on any line run by the subdivision of the Tsp. south but a line previously run.

The Instructions direct the establishment of 1/4 Sec. Standard corners at the time of running the Std. Parallels and also of closing corners at the intersection of the lines run i.e. Sec. corners.

What is the law and ruling? (Letter Received 1862 p.237).

On November 28, Washburn replied,

Your note requesting information as to the establishment of 1/4 sec. Corners on the North boundary of a Tp. when such a boundary is a “Standard Parallel” & the 1/4 corners established thereon are consequently not applicable to the sections south of such Standards is received, and in reply I would state, that I am not aware of any land law or instructions of the General Land Office that requires the establishment of 1/4 sec. Corners on Standard Parallels for the Northern tier of sections of the Tp. South of it. There can of course be no closing 1/4 corner as the quarter lines are not run in the Government surveys (Letters Sent vol. L p.278)

On December 29, 1862 Wright, then in camp in section 27 T.136 R.26, with the nearest post office at Crow Wing, wrote

I find in surveying this tp that there is a small portion of T.135 R.26 between this and the River Mississippi, Shall I survey it? It will not be over 2 miles of line. Perhaps not over one.

I wish to know further, whether I can have my work examined speedily so as to get my pay without delay for what I survey this winter - say for a (word unknown) of tps (Letters Received, 1862 p.240).

In reply on January 20, 1863, Washburn wrote,

In reply to your letter of the 29th ult respecting a small frac. Tp on the Mississippi River not embraced in your present contract being Tp 135 N R 26 W 5th PMer. I have to say that insomuch as this frac. Tp would have been included in your contract had I been aware that such a Town was there situated, (the Township lines on file not showing it). You are hereby instructed to make a survey thereof with the exterior boundaries of same returning the notes and diagrams in the same form required for the surveys under your contract. All the surveys now being executed by you will be platted and passed upon by this office immediately on the return of the notes, and if approved, accounts for the same will be transmitted to Washuington for payment under the terms of your contract (Letters Sent vol. L p.284).

On April 22 Washburn responded to a letter sent by Wright April 20 asking for instructions to correct the western boundary of Township 136 N Range 26 W.

I have now to state that as your examination of the above boundary made subsequent to your completion of the subdivision of T 136 N R 36 W shows conclusively that there exists an error of 10 chs in the whole line but which error was no doubt made in obtaining the distance by offset from the South Bdy of T 136 N R 26 & 27 W at its intersection with the Mississippi river and not as first supposed by you at the north end of said Bdy it will be necessary for you to remeasure the whole line by commencing at the corner of Secs. 34 &35 on S Bdy of Tp 136 N R 27 W then running north two miles then East 2 miles to the range line and establish corner to Secs 24 25 91 & 30. Then remeasuring said Range line South of the Mississippi river and North to the 9th Standard Parallel - Establish the proper Section, 1/4 section and meander corners thereon and carefully erase and destroy the erroneous corners previously established - You will return separate notes of the remeasurement of this line. You will proceed to the correction of the lines in Tp 136 N R 26 W between Sec. 30 & 31 - 19 & 30 - 18 & 19 - 7 & 18 and 6 & 7 by running same from the interior section corners West of the new corners established by you on the Range line making the necessary corrections in your subdivision and meander notes and being careful to obliterate the marks of the 1/4 section and meander corners previously established on those lines. Your compensation for the remeasurement of the Range line will be at the same rate as your subdivision surveys - viz. $5 per mile but in consideration of the circumstances and the instructions under which the subdivisions were made and your inability to detect the error subsequently found to exist in the Range line until you arrived at the intersection of the North Bdy of the Township with the further difficulty of not having the distance on the West side of Sec 6 by which (by which) you could have ascertained the discrepancy between your line and the Township Bdy before reaching the western side of the Township I shall include in your account of these subdivisions the remeasuring of the lines of the western tier of Sections and also urge upon the Department the justice of your being paid thereof.

I would however remark that in ascertaining the proper place for corners of Secs. 24-25-19 & 30 on the Range line in accordance with the foregoing instructions there is little or no additional work required as such lines form part of the subdivision of Tp 136 N R 27 W embraced in your contract.

The variation of the west side of Sec. 6 (T 186 N R 26 W) is returned at 11o 45 / , the length of line 80.10 chs found by the Deputy by offsetting from the meander corner established at 43.70 chs North form corner of Secs 1-6 7 &12 West 22 chs then North 36.40 chs to the 9th Standard Parallel no distance being given from such intersection to any post on the Parallel, the true corner being in Lake.

I would call your attention to the following as a general guide in future in all subdivisional surveys. The duty of a deputy in finding a discrepancy between his own work and the Township line survey is first to re-trace and thoroughly re-examine his own work then if no error is found to examine the Township line and if an error is there found to exist after a careful retracing and remeasurement of the line, such Township line may be resurveyed provided that the adjoining Townships has not been previously subdivided and tat no change would thereby be necessarily required in a Township corner (Letters Sent vol. L pp.315-316).

Apparently the partners were paid in at least two installments. On June 24, 1863 the Commissioner of the GLO forwarded a draft for $441.42 to Washburn for the surveys they had completed under the contract. The amount exceeded what Wright and Banker expected. The Commissioner stated the difference was due to, “our allowing the deputies for the survey of the lines connecting the closing with the standard corners, in Tps 135 & 136 N. R 26 W, amounting to 1m., 01 ch., 41 l.; as authorized by the Manual of S. Instructions pp 22 & 25 (Letters Received 1863 p.103).

On September 30 Washburn wrote that he had received the field notes for T 133 N R 31 and 32 W. He also wrote,

I have purchased the markers as you request and will have them delivered to Mr. Morse to be forwarded.

As the contracts of Messr. Johnston and Thornton and Mr. Cook will cover the sum apportioned for field work for the present fiscal year, I shall be unable to assign you any further surveys this season. I shall however be glad to receive any information you may obtain as to any Townships adjoining those embraced in your contract that might be desirable to subdivide in 1864 as containing valuable timber (Letters Sent vol. L p.374).

In his annual report for 1864, dated October 10, Washburn noted that Wright and Banker had completed their work. He had approved their field notes, the plats had been sent to Washington and the plats and descriptive lists had been forwarded to the land office at St. Cloud (United States, Congress, House, 1864 p.137). Payment for their work was delayed, however. On February 11, 1864 the surveyor general wrote at length to Commissioner J. M. Edmunds in Washington regarding the objections Edmunds had raised a letter dated January 23rd., 1864, to paying Wright and Banker. The letter describes firstly, how the two deputies worked and secondly, the practice of meandering one side of a river only. Washburn wrote,

Referring to the first point of objection raised in you communication, to wit, that Messrs Wright and Banker with one party could not possibly have run the lines shown by their notes to have been established each day during the time they were in the field & c. I have to say that during all or nearly all the time said surveys were progressing they employed in prosecuting the same three separate parties directed and superintended by Mr. Wright in his own proper person.

Under your construction I hardly see how the Deputy could truly subscribe to the Oath without individually performing the entire work in detail. The fact that the compassman and other assistants employed in accordance with the instructions, in the execution of their work are required by the Department to make oath attached to the original field notes on file in this office, that they faithfully performed the work assigned them in accordance with the instructions & c., implies at least that the Department as well as the Deputies rely somewhat upon their affidavits in establishing the fact that the surveys were faithfully executed; and I apprehend if those affidavits were omitted the work would not be approved even though the Deputy should swear that the work was performed in accordance with the law and regulations, and having employed at the same time but one party and that under his constant supervision.

As I understand it the Deputies while having the general direction and supervision of the Surveys in the field, giving to the same their undivided attention and being responsible if the work is not properly done, must of necessity rely to a large extent upon the honesty of their assistants for the faithful performance of the details of the work; and their affidavits under such circumstances if the notes show and the Deputy knows nothing to the contrary may properly be regarded by him as conclusion that the work has been so performed and have heretofore apparently been regarded by the Department. Whatever may be the construction of the Department now however, Messr Wright and Banker proceeded to execute the surveys under their contract in the manner in which the same was done so far as relates to the employment of different parties, with the knowledge and approval of this Office; and in justification of myself I have to say that it is consistent with all former practice of the office since its removal to this state and while in Michigan, of the office at Dubuque and I presume of the other offices in the country. Such having been the unquestioned practice for years I had reason to believe that it was sanctioned by the Department and that its continuance would not be disapproved.

For explanation of the manner in which Mr Wright prosecuted the surveys with different parties, the average amount of actual lines established each day , the facility with which he was enable to superintend the work & c. I refer you to the enclosed copy of a communication from him. I would especially call your attention to the statement of the average amount and the greatest amount run in one day and to his explanation of the fact that he could superintend the work of two or more parties operating in different towns at the same time. I would further say upon examination of the original notes on file in this office it appears that he ran on the 28th day of September last 8 miles, including randoms, on the 2d day of October, on the 5th 11 miles, on the 6th 21 miles, on the 8th 24 miles, a portion of which Mr. Wright says should be credited to the 9th, and on the two last days of his work 47 miles, a portion of which he says properly belongs to the 12th of Oct.

Owing to a slight but perhaps unavoidable confusion of dates as explained by him some days have more work credited them than was actually done on those days. If then your examination of the transcripts is correct some of the dates in the original notes on file in this office must have been left out of the transcripts.

With respect to the omission of the meanders of the left bank of the “Long Prairie” river in Messrs Wright and Bankers and also the omission of the left bank of “Kettle” river in Mr Cooks notes, I would observe that I found it had been the practice of this office both beforehand since its removal from Detroit, to instruct Deputies to meander one bank only of rivers not strictly navigable streams but used for rafting and of great importance in sections where lumbering operations would always be carried on; although meander posts were always required to be set on both banks on every section line. The instructions to meander but one bank were based I believe upon the ascertained fact that Deputies had been in the habit of taking the courses and distances of one bank only of such small streams (they being generally of a uniform width) and constructing a set of meanders for the opposite shore and returning them in their notes as if both had been actually run, and thus obtaining pay for work not really performed. As the object of the meander notes was only to obtain the data on which to ascertain the area of the lots made fractional by the river it was justly I think, considered unnecessary to pay a deputy for running useless lines or pretending to run them, when they could just as well be protracted in the office.

In both the contracts of Messrs Wright and Banker and Mr Cook as also in that of Messrs Johnson & Thornton I knew that certain important streams for lumbering purposes passed through a portion of their subdivisional surveys and I so fully coincided with the views taken by my predecessor of the importance of keeping such open and unobstructed although could certainly not be termed navigable streams in the usual acceptance of the term, that I had no hesitation in directing their meander in the same manner that other streams of like character had been previously meandered both in this State and Michigan, and against which mode no objection had been heretofore made by the Department. The Deputies are usually instructed to take the courses and distances upon the same bank of the stream through the township but where obstructions or difficulties might be met with on that bank I could see no reasonable objection to their changing to the opposite bank, the course of the river being just as clearly ascertained and the necessary protraction made in the office (Letters Sent vol. L pp. 386-390).

There is no letter stating that Wright and Banker were paid by the government but I assume that they were, after all they both carried on working as deputy surveyors.

George B. Wright and Thomas B. Walker

Wright was awarded a second contract for running township exteriors and subdividing thirteen townships with Thomas B. Walker April 12, 1865. The surveyor general wrote,

Your contract dated April 12th having received the approval of the Commiss. of the General Land Office, you are hereby authorized and directed to proceed to the execution of the surveys therewith.

Your surveys will be made in strict accordance with the printed “General Instructions” including also the supplemental instructions issued by the General Land Office June 1, 1864 (and to which your attention is specially directed) it is not therefore deemed necessary to give any special instructions therefor.

You are herewith furnished with the diagrams of the Tps. embraced in your contract for subdivision showing the establishment of all the corners & fractional distances thereon, also with the necessary blank field books & c. The commission of Mr. Walker as a Deputy of this Office is enclosed (Letters Sent, vol. L pp.476-477)

The exteriors and eleven of the townships were to be surveyed under the published instructions contained in the contract. Later instructions, issued May 27 and June 15 but unfortunately not included in the letterbook, were to govern their work in three townships. Again Wright seems to have been the senior partner. May 1, 1865 Walker wrote asking that the drafts for their work be sent to Wright (Letters Received, 1865 p.52).

On May 27, 1865 Levi Nutting, the new surveyor general wrote to Wright and Walker at Crow Wing,

The result of the conversation had with Mr Wright on the subject of undertaking certain subdivisional surveys within the Gull Lake Reservation before commencing the survey under your contract of 12th April last and the relinquishment of a portion the subdivisional surveys embraced in such contract in order to bring the whole within the estimated amount thereof, having been the consent of the part of Mr Wright to make the surveys required and to such relinquishment. I have now to instruct you especially as to the survey above referred to. In the 1st Article of the Treaty of May 1864 with the Chippewa Indians the following reservations are made. One half section including the Mission buildings & grounds at Gull Lake to the Revd. John Johnson, Missionary & one section on the South East of Gull Lake to the chief Hole-in-the-Day. One section at Mille Lacs to the chief Shaw-bosh-King and one section at Sandy Lake to the chief Mis-qua-dau. As the first three grants above mentioned are situated within Tp lines already established it has been deemed essential to have the Tps within which such grants will be embraced subdivided as early as practicable and in order to ascertain what Tps will require subdividing you will at once place yourself in communication with Mr E Clark the Indian Agent and also with the Revd Mr Johnson and Hole-in-the-Day (the grantees named in the Treaty) and consult with them for the purpose of identifying the localities of the grants. By reference to the map of the state it would appear that Tp 134 N R 29 W will embrace the section granted to Hole-in-the-Day and possibly the half section to the Revd. Mr Johnson but as the mission buildings referred to in the grant may be North of the line between Tps 134 &135 it may be necessary to subdivide Tp 135 N R 29 W also in order to locate the latter grant. Should any trace of the North Bdy. Of the Reserve which crosses Tp 135 be found you will be careful to note it & make the usual correction therewith as with all other Reserve lines. Having ascertained within what Tps said grant will be included you will at once proceed to subdivide them and return the notes and diagrams to this office without delay.

After making these surveys in the Gull Lake Reserve you can proceed with those embraced in your contract and at as early a day as practicable you will please inform me the number of those Tps appearing to have the least amount of pine timber in order that I may direct as to the Tps to be relinquished by you in accordance with the understanding had with Mr Wright.

You will communicate with this office as soon as you have ascertained the extent of the surveys necessary to locate the grants in the Gull Lake Reserve, acknowledging the receipt of this letter and your consent to the change in the surveys as respects your contract indicated herein. I include herewith diagrams showing the establishment of the corners on the exterior boundaries of Tps 134 & 135 N R 29 W. Your compensation for these subdivisions will be at the rats of $6 per mile the same to be executed in strict accordance with the manual of surveying instructions and supplement thereto. In surveys under instructions it is necessary for the Deputy to execute a Bond to the Government after heir completion and before payment can be made therefor that the same have been well and faithfully executed. I therefore inclose herewith blanks in triplicate to be executed by yourselves and sureties and forwarded to this office with the notes of your survey. You will perceive by the wording of the Bond that it must be dated subsequent to the execution of the work.

With respect to the survey of the Tp embracing the grant to Shaw-bosh-King at Mille Lacs also required to be made this season. I propose to have the same executed if possible by a Deputy residing in that vicinity but should he be unable to undertake it and no other opportunity offers for survey before or near the close of the present season it is to be understood that on your return from the surveys embraced in your present contract you will undertake and execute the subdivision of the Tp referred to under instructions to be given by this Office, the balance of the surveying appropriation being sufficient to cover such survey and would not therefor require the relinquishment of any further portion of your contract. (Letters Sent vol. L pp.487-489).

On June 15, 1865 the Nutting wrote that he had received their letter of June 9 in which they acknowledged receiving the above letter. He wrote,

With respect to the additional survey (of T 134 N R 28 W) required as it would appear from your statement as also from a letter received from Mr Clark the Indian Agent to embrace the land settled by Chief Hole-in-the-day you can proceed at once to subdivision of same and are furnished herewith with the usual diagrams showing the establishment of the corners fractional distances & c. It is of course to be understood that this additional survey will call for the relinquishment of a further portion of the surveys embraced in your contract in accordance with my letter of instructions of the 27th ulto the full amount of such relinquishment being ascertained at as early a day as practicable and the necessary instructions forwarded to you by way of Crow Wing. As the instructions from the Department to make the surveys in the Indian Reservations only requires the subdivision of the Tps in which the several grants are included I am not authorized to direct the survey of the boundaries of the legal subdivisions which these grants may embrace. In resurveying any of the Tps lines of the Tps to be subdivided you will bear in mind that your notes must distinctly show a full examination of the boundaries has been made and the precise locality of the error found. Should the error be less than 5 chs in amount it is not considered necessary to make a resurvey nor where any discrepancy may arise from a difference in chaining alone (Letters Sent vol. L pp.495).

On June 30, 1865 Nutting wrote,

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of June 25th in which you state the probability of having to subdivide Town 135 N R 28 W to include all of Hole-in-the-day selection, and now inclose diagram of that Town. showing the corners established on the North and East boundaries, the South and West have already been furnished you on the other diagrams (Letters Sent vol. M p.3).

On July 18, 1865 Wright and Walker, then at Crow Wing, wrote to Nutting,

We return herewith Field Notes of Subdivs Tps 134 & 135 R 29 & Tp 134 of R 28. Also 1 book Correction Tp Lines to same Tps - covering the tracts to be reserved for Hole-in-the-Day and Rev. Mr. Johnson. At the time we completed the survey of T 134 R 28, the agent and chief were absent, but from the character of the land we judged that they would not wish to extend the Reservation into Tp 135 and therefore id nit survey that Tp.

The survey returned amount to about $1530. We estimate at this time as follows

3 Tps returned     1530
Tp 137 R 29 subdivided 70 m      420
Tp 138 R 29 partly divided 62 m      312
Tp lines in this check will be 102m       714
                $3036

Making an aggregate of $3036 for 5 Tps and for the Tp lines required to be done. - It appears that there will be little meandering in the remaining Tps and probably 63 m for Tp (word illegible) over the subdivision. At that rate 6 Tps will amount to $2268 and with the above $3036 make $5304 for Tp lines and subdividing 11 Townships. As to the Tps which are left it seems probable that the Western ones have but little Pine upon them and are furthest from streams suitable for logging purposes. It will be difficult for us to ascertain any great distance in advance of the Subdivision as to the character of the country - the subdivisions following so closely upon the Tp line survey. We will however inform you as early as practicable as to the Tps which least require subdivision. The amt of meander in T 134 137 R 29 is increased to 10 miles made on account of Pine river which in the other Tps we do not deem necessary to subdivide meander as it divides into 2 nearly equal sized branches above T 137 R 29. We have executed the required bond - In the sum of $3100 and forwrd same to our sureties, Messrs Baldwin & Barber of Mpls for execution by them - then returned to you.

Please inform us as early as may be, of the probable amt which can be used out of the appropriations for the surveys here by use and also if you succeeded in letting the contract for the survey of the Tps at Mille Lac (Letters Received, 1865 117).

On August 20, 1865 Wright, still in camp, wrote again to Nutting,

Permit me to make a suggestion in regard to the expenditure of the future appropriations for survey in the State. The policy of your predecessor has been to push forward the survey of the timbered lands in the N part of the state as rapidly as possible to the comparative neglect of the agricultural districts.

This was perhaps well enough & in him (being closely identified with the lumbering interests) was natural but I cannot but believe that such policy has been pursued far enough at present, and that some of the choice farming lands in the Western and South western part of the State should be surveyed before any more of the Timber country is brought into market. The lands here are worthless except for the timber, and the surveyor who should be willing to take almost any township in this region of the country, as payment for surveying the same: would be - to say the least rash. The rapid emigration now setting in should be directed to the fresh fields of western Minnesota and the office I believe would do well to stimulate that movement rather than to survey the pine lands for the benefit of a few capitalists and timber speculators. The recommendation of the Surveyor general in his annual report generally, I believe influence the Comm in his “Annual Instruction” of the subsequent year as to the manner of disposing of the appropriations.

Trusting you will not consider my suggestion as too great presumption on my part & that you will confer with other deps who are familiar with the character of this upper country before you accept my estimates of its value (Letter Received, 1865 129).

Nutting answered on August 2 acknowledging that he had received their notes. In addition he wrote,

Previous to the receipts of your notes, the notes of 5 Tps had been recd. From Davis & Webb which will be worked off within a very few days and then yours will be taken up. - In regard to the amount which you can use out of the appropriation for surveys where you now are. I have to say that if the Tps do not average more than you estimated in your letter (63 miles each) you can, unless otherwise hereafter instructed - survey the number of Tps you mention viz. Eight Tps embraced in your contract - or eleven in all. But if the Tps should average - even by an inconsiderable amount - more than you estimate, you will survey but seven Tps as there is no margin left at your estimate. As to the Tps which should be left unsurveyed, I must leave to your good judgment with the simple injunction that the Tps which contain the least timber and the least attraction for settlers should be selected for (illegible word) Mr O E Garrison will probably survey the Township on Mille Lac (Letters Sent vol. M p.15).

The surveyor general reported that Wright and Walker had completed the work directed by the contract of April 12 , 1865 as well as the additional work at Gull Lake in his annual report for 1866 (United States, Congress, House 1866 p.440).

This concluded the surveys that George B. Wright made during phase one of his career in Minnesota. He was clearly a busy and knowledgeable surveyor. In addition to his surveying duties he was appointed a timber agent making him responsible for reporting timber depredations in that area. In 1866 he would receive the first of several contracts to carry out surveys on his own, a story that will be continued in the next issue of Minnesota Surveyor.

Bibliography

Anon, “George B. Wright, pioneer surveyor,” Dis-Closures (Summer, 1992) 10-12.

Squires, Rod., “Letters sent by Surveyor General Charles L. Emerson, 1857,” Minnesota Surveyor (Fall, 1994) 20-26.

Squires, Rod., “ (Spring, 1995)

United States, Congress, House, “Annual report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1864,” H.exec.doc.1, Serial 1220.

United States, Congress, House, “Annual report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1866,” H.exec.doc.1, Serial 1284.

The Compleat Land Surveyor

Introduction.

Most of the papers that I have written describing various aspects of the historical geography of the public land survey in Minnesota for Disclosures and Minnesota Surveyor have used data published by the federal government or unpublished data stored in the Minnesota History Center. I have used a few books and have made reference to them where relevant. Here I briefly describe several of them and list their contents. They can be divided into two groups, those written by surveyors and those written by non-surveyors, in particular geographers. These books, including the ones written by surveyors, contain a great deal of information of a non-technical nature although perhaps only land surveyors would truly appreciate many of the points made by the authors.

A. Books written by surveyors.

Essential for any land surveyor in Minnesota is the book containing a very large number of the instructions issued to the deputy public land surveyors who ran survey lines in Iowa. This publication make the voluminous handwritten instructions contained in various letterbooks available in printed form and gives a context for the field notes and the plats produced by the deputies. As the editor of the book writes, talking about the well-qualified land surveyor, “(h)e should have access to the field notes and plats of the original surveyors whose work he must retrace” and so, “he needs to know as much as possible of the instructions under which the earlier work was done” (p.v). Since the surveyors general of Wisconsin and Iowa administered the work of the deputy surveyors in Minnesota Territory until 1857 these instructions, although directed at the deputies working in Iowa, are valuable.

(1). Dodds, J. S. (Ed) Original Instructions Governing Public Land Surveys of Iowa; A Guide to their Use in Resurveys of Public Lands (Ames, Iowa, Iowa Engineering Society, 1943).

CHAPTER I.
Introduction.
CHAPTER II.
Early Iowa legislation and Surveys.
Iowa Territory Established.
Early Iowa Settlement.
Surveys from the Dubuque Office.
Township Plats and Descriptive Notes.
Early Iowa Deputy Surveyors.
Outline of Iowa Survey Methods.
Iowa Surveys Begin.
Establishment of Fifth Principal Meridian in Iowa.
Burt's Instructions.
CHAPTER III.
General Instructions.
Tiffin's 1815 Instructions.
General Instructions of 1831. Surveys and Contracts; Marking Corners; Field Books; Subdivisions of Sections and Fractional Sections.
General Instructions of 1834. Method of Running Lines; Marking Corners; Meanders; Excess or Deficiency; River Crossings; Field Books; Field Notes.
General Instructions of 1843. Form of Oath; Township Boundary Lines; Subdivisions; Measuring; Meandering; Limits of Closure; Marking Lines and Corners; Field Books; Form of Field Notes.
General Instructions of 1846. System of Survey; Instruments; Marking Lines and Establishing Corners; Measurements and Meander Corners; Township Lines; Subdivisions; How and What to Meander; Field Notes.
General Instructions of 1850. System of Survey; Contracts; Instruments; Running and Marking Lines; Measuring Lines; Establishing and Marking Corners; Subdividing Sections (Special Method); Meandering Rivers etc.; Private Claims; Indian Reservations, etc.; Field Notes.
General Instructions of 1851. System; Instruments; Marking Lines and Establishing Corners; Measurements and Where to Establish Meander Corners; Township Lines; Subdivisions; Corrections and Resurveys; How and What to Meander; Field Notes.
General Instructions of 1855. System of Rectangular Surveying; Range, Township, and Sec-tion Lines, Mode of Numbering Townships and Sections, Stan-dard Parallels; Of Measurements, Chaining, and Marking, Tally Pins, Process of Chaining, Levelling (sic) the Chain and Plumbing the Pins; Marking Lines, of Trial or Random Lines, Insuperable Objects on Line, Witness Points, Marking Irons; Establishing Corner Boundaries, at What Points for Township, Section, Quarter Section, and Meander Corners, Respectively, Manner of Establishing Corners by Means of Posts; Notching Corner Posts; Bearing Trees, How Many at the Difference Corners, and How to Be Marked? Stones for Corner Boundaries, Minimum Size, Marking Same Mounds Around Posts, of Earth or Stone, How to Be Con-structed and Conditioned; Mound Memorials-Witness Mounds to Corners; Double Corners Only on Base and Standard Parallels; Meandering Navigable Streams, Lakes, and Deep Ponds; Field Books for Deputy Surveyors; Summary of Objects and Data to Be Noted in Field Books; Swamp Lands Granted to the State by Act of 28th of Septem-ber, 1850, Their Outlines to Be Specially Noted by the Deputy Surveyor; Noting of Settlers' Claims in OREGON, WASHINGTON and NEW MEXICO; Affidavits to Field Notes, and Provisions of Act of 8th August, 1846, Respecting the Same, Pains and Penalties which A-tach to False Surveys; Forms of Official Oaths, Prior to Entering Upon Duty, for a Deputy and His Assistants; Exteriors or Township Lines, and Limitations Within Which They Must Close; Method of Subdividing; Limitations Within Which Section and Meander Lines Must Close; Of Diagram A, Showing a Body of Township Exteriors; Of Diagram B, Showing the Subdivisions of a Township into Sections; Of Diagram C, Illustrating the Mode of Making Mound, Stake and Stone Corners; Subdivisions of Fractional Sections into Forty-Acre Lots Are to Be Made by the Surveyor General on the Township Plats, and to Be Designated by Special Numbers, Where They Cannot Be Described as Quarter-Quarters; Township Plats to Be Prepared by the Surveyor General in Triplicate; Township Plats to Be Furnished to the General Land Office and to the district Land Offices, Details to Be Shown Thereon Respectively; "Descriptive Notes," showing the quality of Soil and Kind of Timber Found on the Surveyed Lines in Each Township, and Describing each Corner Boundary, Are to Accompany the Plat of the Same, to Be Furnished by the Surveyor General to the District Land Office; The Original Field Books of Surveys, Bearing the Written Ap-proval of the Surveyor General, to Be Retained in His Office; Certified Transcripts of Field Books to Be Furnished to General Land Office; Meander Corners to Be Numbered on Township Plats; Variation of the Needle, and Mode of Ascertaining the Same; Specimen Field Notes A and B-the Former of the Exterior lines of a Township, and the Latter of the Subdivision of the Same-Constitute a Separate Series of Pages from I to 53, Inclusive, and They Are Preceded by an Index Referring the Township, Section, Closing and Meander Lines, as Shown on Diagram B, to Their Corresponding Pages in the Notes A and B; The "General Description" of the Character of Public Land in the Township Follows the Subdivision Notes, with a "List of Names" of Assistants, and the Mode of Authenticating the Survey, Under the Provisions of the Act of 8th August, 1846, and Form for Certifying Copies of Field Notes to be Trans-mitted to the General Land Office; Conclusion, "Table Showing the Difference of Latitude and Departure in Running 80 Chains, at Any Course from 1 to 60 Minutes". W.D. Jones Comments on General Instructions. Measurements; Bearing Trees and Witness Trees; Monuments; Running of Line; 1850 Method of Subdivision. Map Showing Meridians and Standard Parallels
CHAPTER IV
Special Instructions to the Deputy Surveyors. Explanation of Chapter Arrangement, How to Use; Map Showing Names of Deputies and Their Township Exterior Contracts; Map Showing Contracts for Township Subdivision; Tabular Key to Names of Deputies Having Contracts Numbered on Map; Explanation of Preceding Table Listing names of Deputies; Explanation of Succeeding Index Maps; Index County Maps Showing Deputies and Dates for Various Township and Subdivision Lines; Letters of Instruction to Deputy Surveyors, Letter Book A 1836-1838, Letter Book B 1939-1846, Letter Book C 1846-1848, Letter Book D 1848-1851, Letter Book E 1851-1853, Letter Book P 1853-1856, Letter Book G 1858-1864; Standard Paragraphs Used in Letters of Instruction, Robert T. Lytle, Oct. 6, 1836, to Nov. 30, 1837, George W. Jones, Oct. 16, 1840, to July 27, 1841,
James Wilson, May 26, 1842, to July 14, 1845, George W. Jones, July 14, 1845, to Dec. 11, 1848, Henry A. Wiltse, Dec. 15, 1848, to Jan. 24, 1849, C. H. Booth, Feb. 9, 1849, to May 30, 1850, George 113. Sargent, May 8, 1851, to April 1, 1853, Warner Lewis, June 6, 1853, to July 27, 1859.
CHAPTER V
Special Examinations and Resurveys.
Correspondence Relating to Such Special Surveys;
Iowa Map of the Location of Special Examinations;
Iowa Map Showing the Location of Resurveys
CHAPTER VI
Restoration of Lost and Obliterated Corners.
Problems of Retracement-References for Study; Erroneous Instructions for Establishment of the Center of a Sec-tion; Reasons for and Use of the Original Instructions; Aids to Retracement of Land Lines;
The Judicial Functions of Surveyors; Hodgman on Retracement;
Extracts from G.L.O. Circular No. 1452
CHAPTER VII
The Iowa-Missouri Boundary. Map of the Iowa-Missouri Boundary Lines; Controversy over Location of State Lines; Sullivan's Line; Missouri Boundaries; Brown's Survey of Missouri's North Boundary-1837; Marking lowa's South Boundary-1838; Milburn's Map-1838; Rapids of the River Des Moines; Instructions for Survey of Iowa's South Boundary-1838; Search for Notes on Sullivan's Line; Legal Opinion on Line's Location; Lea Report on His Investigations-1839; The Boundary Dispute, "Verge of War"; Iowa Becomes a State; The Iowa Pioneers Would not Compromise-1846; Boundary Commission Appointed; Supreme Court Decree-1848; Boundary Survey-1850; Boundary Resurvey of 1896; Surveyor's Report-1850; Note A. Calculation of Offsets from the Tangent for running the true parallel of latitude. Note B. Calculation of Length of a Second of Latitude at the State Line. Note C. Calculation of Length of a Second of Longitude on the State Line. The Boundary Line Survey-1850 (Detailed Field Notes); Report of Commissioners-1849; Supreme Court Decree; Detailed Expenses of Survey; Adjoining Boundary Surveys Closing on the Iowa-Missouri Line; John Wilson William’s' Survey;, U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Resurvey-1896. Appendix A. Mr. W. C. Hodgkin's Report. Appendix B. Costs of the Survey-1896.
CHAPTER VIII
The Iowa-Minnesota Boundary. Surveys-1852; Accuracy and Importance of the Survey; Beginning of the Survey; Instructions to Captain Talcott-1852; Survey of Reference Lines; Smith Assists Taylor on Guide Lines; Check Survey of Guide Line; Exploratory Line with Solar Compass; The Commissary Department; Talcott's Report; Additional Documents in Iowa Land Office.
CHAPTER IX
East and West Boundaries of Iowa. Islands in the Mississippi; The West Boundary; The River Has Moved but the Boundary is Still the Same-1942.
CHAPTER X
Indian Boundary Lines and other Items of Interest Relating to the Original Surveys. Map Showing Indian Boundary Lines; References in Annals of Iowa;
Reading List of Interesting Surveying Incidents During the Early Surveys; Ivy Johnson's Death; Miscellaneous, Specimen Contract-1852, Bonds of Deputies, Oath of Deputy Surveyor; Surveys of Towns, Belleview, Burlington, Dubuque, Ft. Madison and Peru, Instructions to Willard Barrows; Private Land Claims, Julien Dubuque, Basil Giard, Louis Honori Tesson (Fresson), Antoine Le Claire;
Frontier Hardships and Indian Depredations.

(2). Dodds, J.S. (Ed) Original Instructions Governing Public Land Surveys, 1815-1855; A Guide to their Use in Resurveys of Public Lands, General Edition for use in all Public Land States (Ames, Iowa, J.S.Dodds, 1944).

Dodds later privately republished all of the material that related to the surveys in the public land states. In this book he omitted all of the information that was useful only to anyone working in Iowa, such as the instructions to the deputy surveyors. He also omitted description of Iowa’s boundary surveys.

(3). McEntyre, John G., Land Survey Systems (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978).

McEntyre’s book, “an efficient overall discussion of land survey systems” (p.vii), was “intended to serve as a textbook for students in land surveying programs and as a general reference work for practitioners”(p.vii), the need for which he determined on the basis of a survey sent to state surveying societies and schools. Arguing that “a comprehensive understanding of a system must include knowledge of its development” (p.vii), he wrote of his book,

Discussion is centered on the development of land data systems in the United States over three centuries, beginning with colonial systems and concluding with proposed future systems. The concept of the United States Public Land System and the principles of metes and bounds descriptions are studied. The techniques of ascertaining the intentions and procedures followed by early public land sur-veyors are thoroughly analyzed. Proper retracement procedures in the public land system are also set forth. The State Plane Coordinate System, as proposed by the National Geodetic Survey, is discussed. Finally, the concepts advanced by the nonprofit corporation, North American Institute for Modernization of Land Data Systems (MOLDS), are thoroughly examined (p.vii).

This is a fine book, rich in details of practices and specific commentary on the changes in the public land survey system from one time period to another.

CHAPTER 1.
Ancient and Pre-American Colonies.
CHAPTER 2.
The American Colonies and the United States.
CHAPTER 3.
United States Public Land System, 1785-1815.
CHAPTER 4.
United States Public Land System 1816-4854.
CHAPTER 5.
United States Public Land System, 1855-1901.
CHAPTER 6.
United States Public Land System, 1902-1973.
CHAPTER 7.
Monumentation in the United States Public Land System.
CHAPTER 8.
Computation of Areas in the United States Public Land System.
CHAPTER 9.
Subdivision of Sections and Retracement Surveys.
CHAPTER 10.
Metes and Bounds Descriptions.
CHAPTER 11.
United States State Plane Coordinate System.
CHAPTER 12.
Land Data Systems in the Future.
APPENDIX A. Sample Field Notes from 1855 Manual of Instructions for Survey of Exterior Boundaries of a Township.
APPENDIX B. Partial Set of Field Notes from 1855 Manual for Subdivision of a Township into Sections.
APPENDIX C. Marking Required and Field Note Format Prescribed, Manual of 1881.
APPENDIX D. Restoration of Lost and Obliterated Corners, Department of the Interior, General Land Office, March 13, 1883.

(4). White, C. Albert, A History of the Rectangular Survey System. (Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1982).

Published by the Bureau of Land Management, this massive tome, almost eight hundred pages in length, is the most comprehensive book on the evolution of the public land survey. White wrote it “as a reference for rules and policies, as well as the laws on which they are based” (p.vii), designed to provide “an outline of the history of the development of the public land surveys and the social and economic conditions leading to the first land ordinance”(p.vii). He describes the changes in the Instructions to Deputy Surveyors and Manuals of Surveying Instructions, throughout the nation with reference to federal statutes, General Land Office instructions, and federal court cases. This book is written, most appropriately, as a chronology rather than by subject. But that leaves some gaps in some surveying topics. He wrote, “(i)f the problem has never been fully resolved, the answers will not be found in this book. The book will not give the reader answers, only the precedence of what has gone before” (p.vii). The book does not include a description of mineral surveys but its most obvious omission is the absence of an index that would allow the scholar interested in a particular subject to go to the appropriate page. The index comprises a listing of relevant statutes and the names of individuals, including those involved in court cases, mentioned in the text. The Appendix contains perhaps the most useful information for the modern surveyor.

CHAPTER I
Political and Economic Events Leading to the Passage of the First Land Ordinance. English Claims to America; Land Tenure Systems; Types of Government; Locating Claims; The Western Lands; Events During and Following the Revolutionary War; Land Ordinance of 1785; The Northwest Ordinance of 1787; Summary.
CHAPTER II
Development of the Rectangular System of Surveys. The Period 1785-1796; The Period 1796-1812; The Period 1812-1836; The Period 1836-1849.
CHAPTER III
The General Land Office within the Department of the Interior. The Period 1849-1910.
CHAPTER IV
The Direct System to End of the General Land Office. The Period 1910-1946.
CHAPTER V
Surveyors General of the Public Land States. Commissioners of the General Land Office; Offices of Surveyors General by State.
APPENDIX. Letter and Instructions to District Surveyors, for Subdividing Sections, Jared Mansfield, August 20, 1804. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors, Jared Mansfield, 1804. Letter, Instructions to Deputy Surveyors, Thomas Freeman, June 1811. Letter, Josiah Meigs to Thomas Freeman, Surveyor General of Mississippi, March 13, 1815. Letter, Thomas Freeman to Josiah Meigs, April 29, 1815. Letter, Edward Tiffin to Josiah Meigs about Rector Instructions, July 26, 1815. Instructions for General (William) Rector, July 1815. Instructions for Deputy Surveyors, from Edward Tiffin, July 1815. Letter, Thomas Freeman to Silas Dinsmore, September 15, 1819. Letter, Edward Tiffin to George Graham, September 22, 1823. Letter, Instructions to Edward R. Downing from John Dinsmore, March 1830. Letter of Instructions to Surveyors General, from Elijah Hayward, July 28, 1831. Letter, Elijah Hayward to Gideon Fitz, October 24, 1831. Instructions for Surveying in the State of Mississippi by Gideon Fitz, December 1831. Specimen Field Notes for State of Mississippi, by Gideon Fitz, May 1832. Circular to Surveyors General, about lotting sections, from Elijah Hayward, May 8, 1832. Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Arkansas, 1833. General Instructions to Deputies for Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, 1833. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Illinois and Missouri, 1834. Letter, Robert Lytle to Erastus Farnum, about subdividing sections, October 30, 1835, General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Arkansas, 1837. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Florida, 1842. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Arkansas, 1843. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Wisconsin and Iowa, 1846. Special Instructions to John Mullett from Lucius Lyon, April 22, 1848. Special Instructions to Guy Carleton from Lucius Lyon, July 14, 1849. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors for Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, 1850. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Florida, 1850. General Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Wisconsin and Iowa, 1851. Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Illinois and Missouri, 1856. Manual of Surveying Instructions to the Surveyor General of Oregon, 1851. Manual of Surveying Instructions, 1855. Instructions to Surveyors General, Amendments to 1855 Manual, June 1, 1864. Circular, to Surveyors General about Lot Numbering, July 28, 1866. Circular No. 22, about Island Surveys, June 10, 1868. Circular about Surveying Lake Beds, July 13, 1874. Circular; about Acceptance and Filing of Plats, April 17, 1879. Letter Circular, Subdivision of Sections and Restoring Lost Corners, November 1, 1879. Manual of Surveying Instructions, 1881. Circular Booklet, Restoration of Lost and Obliterated Corners, March 13, 1883. Circular No. 119, Subdivision of Sections, June 2, 1887. Manual of Surveying Instructions, 1890. Manual of Surveying Instructions, 1894. Circular, Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Comers and Subdivision of Sections, October 16, 1896. Manual of Surveying Instructions, 1902. Circular Booklet, Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners and Subdivision of Sections, June 1, 1909. Letter of Instructions, Topography, August 15, 1910.

(5) Cadle, Farris W. Georgia Land Surveying History and Law. (Athens, Georgia, University of Georgia Press, 1991).

The land surveying profession needs more books like this, need I say more? He writes,

The land surveyor's most fundamental role is to measure property lines on the ground and then to describe these lines.(usually in the form of a plat) from his measurements. It is manifestly evident that before such lines can be measured they must first be found, and it is here that the greatest perplexities in surveying occur and where surveyors often show their greatest incapacity. Rapidly rising land values and the increasing incidence and expense of boundary litigation demand that more serious consideration be given this matter.

The purpose of this book is to present, in lay terms, a comprehensive treatment of the legal and historical aspects of land surveying in Geor-gia, with emphasis on their practical import to the profession. Although written for land surveyors, this text may also prove useful to attorneys, realtors, title abstractors, historians, and anyone concerned with real property in Georgia. Every Georgia case and statute dealing with bound-aries has been considered for discussion. Liberal use has been made of general legal works and the decisions of other states to supply points not decided in Georgia and, in a few instances, to compare the Georgia law to that of other states.

While the value of the legal perspectives presented are probably ap-parent, it is hoped that the historical perspectives provided will have just as useful an application. We are all inexorably caught up in the past. As E. Merton Coulter once stated, "The present is not something that appeared without a background. The present is nothing more than an outgrowth of the past." By knowing the past we have a better understand-ing of the present. In few aspects of human endeavor does this dictum play a more decisive role than with regard to the borders surrounding our freeholds, for it is one of the most basic concepts of real property that boundaries, once established, are fixed and unalterable. Yet most land surveyors go casually about their work, scarcely aware of the rich and complex panoply of historical factors that have shaped the bound-aries they routinely measure and restore. These considerations have been brought home time and again to the author during his years of land sur-veying experience. He has been accorded the opportunity of retracing original Garden Lot and Farm Lot lines of Savannah Township, still in-tact and still serving their essential purpose of demarcating adjoining properties two and a half centuries after they were first laid down on the ground, probably by Noble Jones or Joseph Avery. His investigations led to the discovery that a century and a half ago his great-great-grandfather and great-great-uncle, perhaps newly arrived in Georgia and landless, acted as chain carriers in a survey performed for the purpose of obtain-ing a headright grant from the state. The lines they ran are still clearly discernable (sic), marking the peripheries of a tract of land that was passed down through the generations until today it is in the possession of the author. The very warrant that authorized their action, the obtaining of which was the initial step in the granting process, along with the resulting plat, are on file in the Georgia Department of Achives and History. The author's ramblings carried him to a remote corner of Carroll County where he reconnoitered the land lot line that James A. Rogers and his crew were running on a damp, wintry day in 1827 when they were sud-denly confronted by an angry party of Creek Indians, thus sparking a nationwide controversy (p.xi-xii).

PART 1. A HISTORY OF THE SURVEYING OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF GEORGIA
1. The Colonial Period. 2. Headright Grants under the State Government. 3. Fieldwork and Office Work under the Headright System. 4. The 1805 and 1807 Land Lotteries. 5. The 1820 Land Lottery. 6. The 1821 Land Lottery. 7. The 1827 Land Lottery. 8. The 1832 Land and Gold Lottery. 9. The Reserves. l0. Some Closing Comments on the Land Lotteries.
PART 11. GEORGIA LAND SURVEYING LAW
11. Nature of Law. 12. Types of Real Property Interests. 13. Transfer of Real Property. 14. Relative Importance of Conflicting Boundary Elements. 15. Strip Conveyances. 1 6. Construction of Various Types of Descriptions. 17. Riparian and Littoral Boundaries. 18. Other Topics.
APPENDIX A. Order of Creation of Georgia's Counties.
APPENDIX B. Navigability of Particular Georgia Rivers and Streams.
APPENDIX C. Surveyors General of Georgia.

The Compleat Land Surveyor

Introduction.

This continues the paper I wrote for the last issue of Minnesota Surveyor describing books that I have used in preparing papers on the historical geography of the public land survey, books that surveyors should find interesting and informative.

B. Books written by non surveyors.

(1) Peters, William E., Ohio Lands and their History. ((New York, Arno Press, 1979)

This volume, part of an Arno Press collection, The Development of Public Land Law in the United States, is a reprint of the third edition of the book privately published by Peters in 1930 in Athens, Ohio. Peters, a member of the Athens Bar, first published his monograph privately in 1917 and followed it with a second edition in 1918 also in Athens, Ohio. He writes,

In no other state is its fundamental history so varied or based so much upon subdivisions of land, grants, settlements and the laws which made such subdivisions of lands, grants and settlements possible, as is that in Ohio. And to understand the history which led to the adoption of the numerous methods applied, will enable one to comprehend more readily the wonderful and, in many instances, the romantic plan, system or purpose into which all these efforts culminated.

That Ohio's history may be more easily understood, endeavor has been made to classify these subdivisions of land, grants and settlements, and to refer under each respective subject, to the laws, colonial, federal, territorial or state, or whence the titles to the various tracts of land or grants were derived, or the settlements were induced or were made possible.

Consequently all such laws, that they might be duly considered, were first compiled, in their entirety, into a code of land titles in Ohio, consisting of four thousand typewritten pages arranged under the various subjects, that OHIO LANDS might be dependable for verification or for further research, alike to the courts, the historians or to the genealogists. And since "to know where to find is next best to know," the publications in which such laws or information may be found are referred to by footnotes (Preface)

His brief Table of Contents does not provide the reader with very much information, however, the description of each of the methods of land division gives the land surveyor insight about the history of the public land survey in the state that was the experimental “hearth” of the survey (Figure 1). 1. Indiscriminate Location. 2. Rectangular Plan. 3. Seven Ranges. 4. Subdivision of Land in Ohio. 5. Congress Lands. 6. Description of Land. 7. Greenville Treaty Line. 8. Virginia Military Tract. 9. Ohio River Survey. 10. Ohio Company. 11. Donation Tract. 12. Ohio University Lands. 13. French Grants. 14. Ebenezer Zane Tracts 15. Refugee Tracts. 16. Dohrman Tract. 17. Salt Reservations. 18. Connecticut Western Reserve. 19. Fire Lands. 20. United States Military Tract. 21. Moravian Tracts. 22. Miami Survey. 23. Between the Miami Rivers Survey. 24. Symmes Purchase. 25. Miami University Lands. 26. Michigan Survey. 27. Twelve Miles Square Reserve. 28. Two Miles Square Reserve. 29. Miscellaneous Surveys. 30. Turnpike Lands. 31. Maumee Road Lands. 32. Canal Lands. 33. Swamp Lands 34. Miscellaneous Grants 35. School Lands. 36. Ministerial Lands.

(2) Pattison, William D., Beginnings of the American Rectangular System, 1784-1800. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964).

Pattison is a geographer who has produced “a chronologically arranged narrative”, which comprises “a simple factual record” (p.2). From this record he offers interpretations, “which explain, for example, the motives behind adoption of the idea of rectangular surveying, and the special contributions made by the public land surveyors, incidental to their primary mission of preparing a wilderness for sale” (p.2)
PART I: THE BASIS IN LAW.
I. Three Prior Considerations. State Cessions; Indian Cessions; Jefferson's Plan for Western States. II. The Original Plan for a Federal Rectangular Land Survey. The Southern System Reformed; Division into Hundreds; The Geographical Mile; Rectangles and Meridians; The Square-Mile Section; The Question of Origins; Review. III. Additional Surveying Provisions Posed by the National Land Ordinance. Registers and Surveyors; Trees, Chain, Plat and Compass; The Identification of Lots; Review. IV. The Land Ordinance of 1785. The Principle of Prior Survey; The Rectangular Grid Retained; Surveying and Numbering; Geographer and Surveyors; The Place of Beginning; Review.
PART II SURVEY OF THE SEVEN RANGES.
V. The First Scene of Survey. Pittsburgh and the Road from the East; Fort McIntosh; Settlements on the Upper Ohio River; Indian Tribes; Lay of the Land in the Seven Ranges. VII. A Chronicle of Surveying, 1785-1788. Establishment of the Beginning Point; The Geographer and Surveyors Assemble; Surveying, 1785; Surveying, 1786; Surveying, 1787-1788. VII. The Quality and Cost of the First Surveys. The Quality of Surveying; The Cost of Surveying. VIII. The Significance of the First Surveys. Influence upon Later Public Land Surveying; Contribution to the Opening of the Northwest; A Service to Mapping; The Production of Historical Evidence.
PART III. INTERIM SURVEYING, AND FEDERAL SURVEYING.
IX. Private Surveying under the Land Ordinance of 1785. The Last Days of Thomas Hutchins; Survey of the Ohio Company Lands; Survey of the Miami. X. How Federal Land Came to be Resumed, Under the Land Act if 1796. The Indians Sustain a Decisive Defeat; Land Companies Lose Their Leadership; Passage of the Land Act of 1796; Federal Surveying Begins Again. XI. Status of the American Rectangular Survey System in 1800. Chain of Command; The Contract System; Surveying: Base Lines and Principal Meridians; Surveying: General Procedure; Survey Records. XII. Summary of Findings. The Rectilinear Grid; Execution of Surveying; The Founders; Contributions to Mapping and Historical Knowledge; Early Opinions for and against the Rectangular Survey System.

(3) Thrower, Norman J. W., Original Survey and Land Subdivision: A Comparative Study of the Form and Effect of Contrasting Cadastral Systems (Chicago, Rand McNally & Company, 1966)

Thrower examines the effects of the public land survey system on administrative boundaries, field and other property boundaries, and lines of transportation in two areas of western Ohio that were surveyed under different systems. A historical geographer, Thrower describes these effects as one element of a cultural landscape.
I. INTRODUCTION.
Systematic Land Subdivision Before 1785. Territorial Claims of the Colonies.
II. SURVEY DISTRICTS AND EXAMPLE AREAS.
The Virginia Military District of Ohio. Northwestern Ohio. General Area. Example Areas. Original Land Survey and Settlement in Example Area U. Original Land Survey and Settlement in Example Area S.
III. SURVEY, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND PROPERTY UNITS IN THE EXAMPLE AREAS, 1875.
Numbered Survey Units and the Rectangular Sections. Counties and Civil Townships, 1875. Property Boundaries in Example Areas, 1875.
IV. PROPERTY, SURVEY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS IN THE EXAMPLE AREAS, 1955.
Property and Survey Units. Counties, Civil Townships, and Properties. School Districts. Field and Woodlot Lines.
V. LAND SUBDIVISION, TRANSPORTATION LINES, AND RELATED FEATURES, 1875 AND 1955.
Density of Public Roads, c. 1875 and c. 1955; Survey Lines and Public Roads, 1875 and 1955; Property Boundaries and Transportation Lines, 1875 and 1955; Proximity and Accessibility, 1875 and 1955; Roads and Civil Divisions.
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

(4) Johnson, Hildegard Binder, Order Upon the Land. The U.S. Rectangular Land Survey and the Upper Mississippi Country (New York, Oxford University Press, 1976).

This book, written by a former longtime faculty member of Macalester College, is “an interpretation of one influence in a region’s historical-geographical development” (Preface). Order upon the Land deals with some of the characteristics inherent in rectangular systems and looks at the survey in the context of the rationalism of the eighteenth century. Then, after discussing early land ordinances, the book treats the emergence of the survey landscape topically” (Preface). This is a pioneer book, written by a distinguished historical geographer, but the points she raises are not particularly well organized and are often not followed to a conclusion.
PART I. THE ORIGIN OF THE RECTANGULAR SURVEY.
1. Setting and Direction. The European Approach to North America, The Three Northwests and the Upper Middle West, Touring the Upper Mississippi, The Westward Movement and Environmental Precedent. 2. Traditions of Land Assignment. Settlement Forms in French Canada and the British Colonies, Roman Centuriation - a European Precedent, French and English Boundary Claims in North America. 3. New Land Assignment Through Land Ordinances. Individual Property and Common Fields, The Ordinances of 1784 and 1785.
PART II. THE SURVEY IN UPPER MISSISSIPPI COUNTRY.
4. Implementation of the Survey. Federal Legislation from 1796 to 1832, The Pre-emption and Homestead Acts, The Forty-Modular Unit of the Survey, Meridians and Baselines. 5. Pre-survey Occupance of the Hill Country. Trails and Roads, Lead Mining and Lumbering, Landings and Townsites. 6. The Functional Impact. Township, County, and State Boundaries, Land Sales and Woodlots, The Checkerboard Image. 7. Emergence of the Survey Landscape. Agricultural Technology and Clearing Fencing, The Section Roadscape, Towns and Main Street, Grid-Patterns.
PART III. THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
8 . Land and Water Management. Contour and Watershed Recreational Land Use. 9. The Balance Sheet. Rectangularity and Land Use Capability, Ubiquity and Sensibility. 10. Postscript.

(5) Price, Edward T., Dividing the Land: Early Beginnings of our Private Property Mosaic (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1995)

Originally meant as an overview of all land survey systems in the United States except the public land system, Price, a geographer was forced to limit his study to the surveys carried out in nineteen states without any reference to the federal survey system (Figure 2). He added Louisiana because of the French long lots “whose fascinating geometry was created in part by processes not significant in other areas of the study” (p.xv). Price treats the variety of land patterns in twenty colonies and the subsequent states comparatively describing the actual land patterns based on empirical evidence. I find this a frustrating book to read. Price has amassed and presented an enormous amount of data on early surveys but the editorial help he received was not sufficient to overcome some writing deficiencies.
I. INTRODUCTION.
1. Framework of the Land.
II. THE NEW ENGLAND REGION: DIVIDING LAND BY TOWNSHIPS.
2. Beginnings: Communal Land Division. 3. Diffusion of Townships.
4. Tradition Recedes: Commercially Founded Towns.
III. THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION: LAND DIVISION BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.
5. Colonial Beginnings. 6. Control and Disposition of Land. 7. Seventeenth-Century Land Division. 8. Eighteenth-Century Colonial Land Division. 9. Farms and Plantations in the Colonial South. 10. The National Period.
IV. THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION.
11. New York: The Dutch Period, 1624-64. 12. New York's English and American Periods: Lordly Estates and Land Developers' Tracts. 13. Land Division in New Jersey, and on the West Bank of the Delaware River up to 1682. 14. Pennsylvania and Delaware: The Penn Proprietorship.
V. LOUISIANA AND TEXAS: LAND DIVISION INITIATED UNDER FRANCE AND SPAIN.
15. Louisiana Land Division Patterns. 16. The Many Templates of Texas Land Division.
VI. PERSPECTIVE.
17. Summary, Conclusion, Aftermath.

APPENDIX A. Surveying and Property Boundaries.
APPENDIX B. Land Grant Maps.
APPENDIX C. Size Distribution Samples of Land Grants and Holdings from Selected Lists.
APPENDIX D. Geometric Analysis of Sample Properties.

(6). Cazier, Lola, Surveys and Surveyors of the Public Domain, 1785-1975 (Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1975).

Cazier, the wife of a former public land surveyor who spoke at last years MSPS meeting you may remember, has written what might be termed an anecdotal account of the public land survey “to be used as an aid in training cadastral surveyors in the application of surveying principles” (Foreword). Full of information and illustrations she dedicates the book with the following,

"Over the years since 1785 there have been perhaps a few thousand public land surveyors - each one worthy of his own story. The names of many of them appear in these pages. Yet, the story of all those who are not mentioned is here to, for it took all of them - the many unnamed no less than those written about - to mark the lines and corners of the public lands. They are the people who have done, and are still doing, the work upon which rests the title to the public lands".

1. Ancient Surveys. 2. Colonial America. 3. The Beginning of the Rectangular Surveys. 4. The Ellicotts and Benjamin Banneker. 5. The Proving Ground. 6. Congressional Authority for Management of the Public Lands. 7. The Refinement of the Rectangular Survey System. 8. Pioneer Surveyors.9. The Far West. 10. In the Vanguard. 11. The Direct System. 12. About Cadastral Surveys. 13. Alaska. 14. The Early Years of the Direct System. 15. Modernization of the System.
16. News, Notes, and Anecdotes. 17. The Bureau of Land Management.

Conclusion.

Of course there are other books that contain material that I have used and literally hundreds of journal articles, for example the one printed in the last issue of Minnesota Surveyor written by Thomas Simpson, many of which are cited in the above books. Two books not listed are, Stewart, Lowell O., Public Land Surveys: History, Instructions, and Methods. (Ames, Iowa, Collegiate Press, 1935), which I notice is for sale by MSPS, and Ladell, John L., They Left Their Mark: Surveyors and their Role in the Settlement of Ontario. (Toronto, Dundurn Press, 1993). These books are all worth reading! Enjoy! [My favorite - Cazier].

George B. Wright, Deputy Surveyor 1862-1865

Introduction

The principal focus of my research on the public land survey is essentially geographic, to describe and explain how and why the rectangular net, a pervasive influence on human behavior because of its controls on spatial organization, spread across Minnesota. As I have already noted, a number of variables influenced where the net expanded in any one year (Squires, 1993a,b, 1994,1995). Two of the principal variables during the territorial period and the first decade of statehood were the demand of settlers illegally and legally occupying unsurveyed land and illegal timber harvesting, variables that influenced Congressional appropriations for surveying in a particular surveying district, appropriations which dictated how many contracts the surveyor general could make with deputies during a particular fiscal year. In short, my studies have shown that the direction of the survey and speed with which it occurred changed over time as did the instructions the surveyor general gave the deputies in his employ.

Because my focus is geographic I have not described the characteristics of the contractual agreements between individual deputies and the federal government in the form of the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington DC and the surveyor general of Minnesota in St Paul. Although such details may be regarded as pedantic they deserve careful study. The administrative process created by Congressional legislation and General Land Office regulations, what affidavits were needed, what bonds executed, what approvals obtained, and, perhaps most importantly, how the deputies were paid, imposed specific requirements on both the surveyor general and the deputies. In the final analysis the accuracy of the rectangular net was dependent upon the quality of the deputies employed by the surveyor general. The willingness and ability of good surveyors to work for the federal government may have depended as much on the requirements imposed on them by the way in which the survey was administered as it did on those requirements imposed by the specific contract - both were characteristics of a federal bureacracy. Those individuals and partnerships that were good, and hence received multiple surveying contracts, were those who were temperamentally willing to fulfill officious requirements, work speedily, thus within the time specified in their contracts, and accurately.

George Wright “was merely one of the many deputy surveyors who left a paper trail, in the form of contracts and other correspondence that we can read, and an actual surveying trail, in the form of the points and lines which the modern surveyor must follow” (Minnesota Surveyor vol.2 no.3, 1995 10). In association with others and on his own he surveyed a large number of townships in west central Minnesota (Figure 1). From 1862 to 1865 he teamed up, first with Isaac A. Banker and then with Thomas B. Walker, to survey townships around Gull and Pelican lakes, where the Mississippi River intersects the third guide meridian, and along the Northern Pacific Railroad line near the Crow Wing River. In the years 1866-1869 he was given four contracts to subdivide thirty-one townships on his own on the Pomme de Terre and Chippewa rivers by Surveyor General Levi Nutting (Figure 2). Subsequently, he joined with George C. Beardsley and Olsen C. Miles to survey along the north bank of the Minnesota River and the east bank of the Red River in the extreme western part of the state.

Fig 1 Township subdivisions involving George B. Wright

By this time and in this part of the state there appears to have been few problems with carrying out the survey. The Manual of 1855 had been in use for several years and thus there is very little factual information in the correspondence between Nutting and Wright about how Wright should carry out the survey. However, the correspondence illustrates the method of appointing individuals as deputies and how they got paid for their work. Apparently it was not unusual for the federal government to pay individual surveyors in several installments, as particular portions of the work were completed, although it is not clear how the payment schedule was established. In addition, each deputy had to be bonded. In earlier years of the survey it appeared that these had to be executed before the deputy went into the field. However, letters between the surveyor general and the Commissioner of the General Land Office suggest that the bonds had to be executed before the deputies were actually paid rather than before they started the contract (Figure 3).

1866

In May, Wright received the first of four contracts in western Minnesota. He was to subdivide firstly, a township that apparently had been omitted in earlier surveys and secondly, nine townships on the Chippewa River.

May 23rd. Surveyor general Levi Nutting to Commissioner Edmunds of the General Land Office forwarding the contract that he had made with Wright. Asking that the commissioner’s approval of the contract be made by telegraph, he wrote,

These townships already contain numerous settlers & more will undoubtedly locate there as soon as it known that they are to be surveyed as they are well watered & contain timber an prairie in desirable proportions for agricultural purposes (Letters Sent, v.M p.69).

May 30th. Edmunds to Nutting approving Wright’s contract of May 22, for the ten townships. Wright was to be paid $6.00/mile and the contract was estimated to be worth $4,500 (Letters Received, v.LIII p.97)

September 15th. Nutting to Edmunds transmitting Wright’s account for the work that he had completed thus far (Letters Sent, v.M p.94)

Before Wright finished this work the surveyor general, Levi Nutting, wrote to him at Alexandria on September 22nd., saying,
being informed by you in your letter of the 24 th ultimo that you will be able to survey "two or three more townships" after completing the surveys embraced in your contract of May 22, 1866 - you are specially instructed to subdivide the following townships situated in the viciniity of those embraced in your present contract to wit: Township 130 N Ranges 38 & 39 W. of 5th Prin Mer. In the survey of these tps you will be governed in all respects by the printed General Instructions with which you are furnished.
Your compensation for these surveys will be at the rate of $6 per mile. You will be required to execute a Bond to the government after their completion and before payment can be made therefore, that the same have been well and faithfully executed. I inclose herewith diagrams showing the establishment of the corners on the exterior boundaries of the two Townships that your are instructed to survey. Please acknowledge the receipt of these instructions and state your willingness and ability to execute the surveys of the tps therein named. (Letters Sent, v.M p. 96 )

October 13th. A new Commissioner, Josiah Wilson, to Nutting informing him that he had forwarded Wright’s account for $1363.23 to the Treasury Department for payment (Letters Received, v.LIII p. 179).

December 22nd. Wilson to Nutting transmitting Wright’s account for surveying work completed under contract dated May 22nd. Nutting wrote that he had mailed the plats and field notes in a separate letter (Letters Sent, v.M p.102).

1867

January 2nd. Wilson to Nutting saying that another of Wright’s accounts, this one for $1341.75, had been sent to the Treasury Department for payment (Letters Received v.LIV p.1).

May 7th. Wilson to Nutting approving Wright’s contract of April 6 (Letters Received, v. LIV p.90).

May 10th. Nutting to Wilson forwarding Wright’s account (Letters Sent, v. M p.126).

May 16th. Nutting to the Comptroller of the Treasury sending the account for the surveys Wright had completed under his instructions of September 22, 1866, along with Wright’s bond executed February 21, 1867 (Letters Sent, M p.128).

May 14th. Nutting to Wright, then in Minneapolis,

your contract dated April 6 1867 for government surveys was approved by the Commissioner on the 7th inst. You will be furnished with the necessary diagrams, field books & c. when desired (Letters Sent, M p.127)

May 16th. Nutting to Wilson transmitting the bond of George B. Wright for the surveys executed by him under his instructions of September 22, 1866

May 22nd. Wilson to Nutting saying that he had received Nutting’s letter of May 16 in which Nutting had sent Wright’s bond for the surveys made under contract dated September 22nd the previous year. He wrote,

The approval of the bond is suspended until copy of the instructions are furnished this office showing the price stipulated therein for the execution of the surveys authorized by you and returned to your office prior to the approval of the same by this offiec as the law directs (Letters Received, v. LIII p. 96).

May 29th. Nutting to Wison,
You say “the approval of the Bond is suspended until a copy of the instructions are furnished” etc - I herewith submit a copy of the instructions to Mr. Wright for the survey of Tps. 130 Rs 38 & 39 W.
The survey of these townships was much needed. Settlers were crowding in that direction in large numbers and Mr. Wright had ample time to survey them after completing his contract - Your letter would seem to intimate (although the language is not very clear) that the Bond should have been executed and approved prior to the work being executed - This I do not understand to be the law, nor according to instructions heretofore given to Surveyors General in cases of survey under special instructions by the Surveyor General , as it has certainly not been the practice of this office. The Bonds in these cases have always been executed after the completion of the surveys.
Hoping the foregoing explanations will prove satisfactory and the Bond of Mr Wright be approved .... (Letters Sent, M p.130)
June 6th. Nutting to Wilson forwarding Wright’s account for the contract dated September 22 the previous years along with the required plats and transcribed field notes (Letters Sent, M p.131)
June 12th. Nutting to Wilson,
“In regards to the time when contracts and Bonds or Instructions & Bonds are to be executed”, you refer to instructions to my predecessor under date of June 9th 1862 and request their observance in future.
In reply I have to say that I am unable to find the instructions referred to on file in this office and in fact no communication from the Department bearing that date. If any instructions of that date and in relation to surveys under Special Instructions from Surveyors General were issied, I repectfully request that a copy of the same be furnished this office as soon as convenient (Letters Sent v.M p.132).
June 14th. Wilson to Nutting acknowledging Nutting’s letter and approving Wright’s bond for his work (Letters Received, v. LIV p.108).
August 30th. Nutting sent Wright’s account for surveys completed under the contract dated April 6th, 1867 to Wilson in Washington DC (Letter Sent, v.M p.148).
September 20th. Wilson to Nutting saying that he had received Wright’s account for $763.29 with Nutting’s letter of August 30th. He had sent the account to the Treasury Department requesting a draft be sent to Wright (Letters Received, v.LIV p.209).
September 30th. Nutting to Wilson including a second account for the surveys Wright completed under the contract of April 6th and another for the surveys Wright completed under the contract of April 17th (Letters Sent, v.M p.162) .
October 14th. Wilson acknowledged Nutting’s letter of September 20th forwarding Wright’s account for $759.72 (Letters Received, v.LIV p. 233).
December 11th. Nutting to Wilson forwarding Wright’s account under the contract of April 6th (Letters Sent, v.M p.180).
December 23rd. Wilson to Nutting saying that he had received Nutting’s letter of December 11th along with Wright’s account for $1137.47 (Letters Received, v. LIV p.279).

1868

January 9th. Nutting to Wilson sending Wright’s final account for the surveys carried out under the contract dated April 6th, 1866 (Letters Sent, v.M p.182)
February 8th. Wilson to Nutting stating that his letter dated January 9th had been received. Wright’s account for $1151.74 had been forwarded to the Treasury Department (Letters Reveived, v.LV p.10).
August 13th. Wilson to Nutting approving Wright’s contract of August 1st for subdividing eight townships at an estimated cost of $3,200). The work would be financed out of the appropriations act passed July 20th, 1868 (Letters Received, v.LV p.124).
October 10th. Nutting to Wilson forwarding Wright’s account under the contract dated August 1 (Letters Sent, v.M p.223).
November 25th. Wilson to Nutting acknowledging Nutting’s letter of October 10th, accompanying Wright’s account of $766.72 (Letters Received, v.LV p.158).

1869

January 22nd. Nutting to Wilson containing Wright’s account under the contract dated August 1, 1868 (Letters Sent, v.M p.235).
March 2nd. Wilson to Nutting saying he had received Wright’s account for $846.90 with Nutting’s letter dated January 22nd (Letters Received, v.LVI p.87).
March 3rd. Nutting to Wilson sending Wright’s account under the contract dated August 1, 1868 (Letters Sent, v.M p.239).
March 17th. Wilson to Nutting replying to Nutting’s letter of March 3rd along with Wright’s account for $941.54 (Letters Received, v.LVI p.53).
March 25th. Nutting to Wilson transmitting Wright’s final account under the contract dated August 1, 1868 (Letters Sent, v.M p.239).
May 4th. Wilson to Nutting replying to Nutting’s letter of March 25th along with Wright’s account for $842.69 (Letters Received, v.LVI p.61).

Conclusion

The adminstrative requirements imposed by the federal government on those individuals who created the rectangular public land survey net, as typified by those imposed on George B. Wright, appeared quite burdensome from a review of the correspondence between the principals involved. In all likelihood, however, they were probably no more severe than those requirements placed on modern surveyors. The role that such requirements have played in the historical geography of the public land survey is a tantalizing research question.

BIbliography

Squires, Rod. “The public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1847-1852," Dis-Closures (Winter,1993a) 10-17.
Squires, Rod. “Public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1853-1857,” Dis-Closures (Spring, 1993b) 18-24.
Squires, Rod. “The public land survey in Minnesota, 1857-1860,” Minnesota Surveyor (Spring, 1994) 16-20.
Squires, Rod. “The public land survey in Minnesota, 1862-1865,” Minnesota Surveyor, v2,2 (1995) 10-17.
All of the correspondence used come from two sets of letterbooks, Letters Sent and Letters Received, part of the United States Surveyor General collection stored in the State Archives, at the Minnesota History Center.

Appendix

In the correspondence files I found the following undated list

SCHEDULE OF ARTICLES RETURNED ?ASIDE FROM THOSE FURNISHED BY THE OFFICE.

2 heavy ames spades cost    2.50
1 grass hook           .50
1 pocket compass 25 awls & handles    .40 .65
1 seamless sack (23c) towels (22c)    .45
1 coffee mill (45c) 1 waggon cover (2.16)   2.61
1 set guy ropes (20c)          .20
      6.91

Charcoal, sacks, drillings powder, leather, various provisions

The Public Land Survey in Minnesota, 1865-1874

Introduction

This paper continues the theme of earlier papers on the historical geography of the public land survey in Minnesota using the published annual reports of the surveyors general, part of the voluminous correspondence between them and the Commissioners of the General Land Office (Squires, 1993a,b, 1994, 1995). Over time the reports become briefer and, although containing a great deal of valuable statistical information, are less useful for explaining the spread of the survey. Here I review a decade of township subdivisions in Minnesota, a decade in which four individuals were appointed to the post of surveyor general. As always, the map produced by Ron Olson and Robert Sarles provides a base for the maps. I also include some statistics that were published in these reports.

By 1865 the survey had spread across most of southern and central Minnesota, except for the extreme western parts of the state , along the north shore of Lake Superior, and into the southernmost part of the Red River valley. A notable gap in the survey net was at the southern end of Mille Lacs Lake where the Mille Lacs reservation was established in 1855. Three “outliers” of subdivisions had been established several miles distant from existing subdivisions, one where the Mississippi River intersected the third guide meridian, an important meridian for the surveys using the Fifth Principal as a reference, a second in the vicinity of present-day Fergus Falls, and a third in the vicinity of present-day Park Rapids (Fig. 1).

LEVI NUTTING, SURVEYOR GENERAL APRIL, 1865 - APRIL, 1869 (FIG. 2)

1865

In his first annual message, dated August 25, 1865, Levi Nutting, states that contracts made by his predecessor, William D. Washburn had exhausted virtually all of the appropriations Congress had made for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865 and that “owing to the failure of the passage of the civil appropriations bill by Congress, no funds were provided for carrying forward the surveys for the next fiscal year” (US Congress, House, 1865 82) (Fig.3). Despite this he had been instructed to survey three townships in the Gull Lake and Mille Lacs reservations in order to locate some of the grants described in the treaty of May 1864. Without any additional money to carry out this work he asked George B. Wright and Thomas B. Walker, who were already working in the vicinity, to complete the necessary work and canceled part of their earlier contract. Further, he had let a contract to Oscar E. Garrison to subdivide a township on the Mille Lacs Reservation.

Charles E. Davis and James Watson Webb Jr. had completed subdividing the Sioux Reservation on the Minnesota River and Nutting states,

These gentlemen report on the immigration of large numbers of settlers in that section; and as the lands on the north of the river are equally as good for agricultural purposes, it is, I think, highly desirable that the public surveys should be extended over them at an early date, as likely to attract immediate purchasers, from the fact that the price of such lands would be less than what will probably be required for the lands within the reservation. The commissioners for valuing these lands are now engaged thereon, and have been furnished by this office with the necessary plats and notes to assist them (US Congress, House, 1865 82)

He adds, “a line of railroad is rapidly being constructed that will afford an outlet for the agricultural products of the Minnesota valley, and thus give additional advantage to such facilities for reaching a market, and render more certain the immediate filling up of this rich and productive section of the country” (US Congress, House, 1865 83).

He draws attention to the omnipresent hazards of surveying in the northeastern part of the state noting that one surveyor, who subsequently had his contract canceled, was having problems because of “the great distance to and almost inaccessible character of the country in which his work was to be carried on, and the late period of the season at which he left for the field, prevented his completing any portion of the contract” (US Congress, House, 1865 82). He states that the surveys, “should be extended in this direction without delay, as considerable attention has recently been directed to this section of the State from the well-known existence of valuable minerals and the reported discoveries of coal, & c.” (US Congress, House, 1865 82).

Included in his review of the survey completed in the past year, which also serves to justify his recommendation for the following year, he argues Minnesota possesses, “nearly every advantage that could possible attract the attention of those seeking a home in a new country, whether for health alone, the investment of capital, or simply desiring to find a land where common industry can reap the greatest returns in the cultivation of the soil.” (US Congress, House, 1865 83). Continuing his unabashed boosterism for the state he writes,

There is no State in the Union better adapted, in what may be called its ag-ricultural sections, to the production of grain, and more especially of wheat. The mineral regions of Lake Superior, and the extensive, and valuable pineries in the northern and eastern portions of the State, only require the application of capital to yield immense wealth. Its fisheries have not yet been sufficiently known to attract the attention which, from their undoubted importance, will in time be given to them; and when to these special advantages is added the great and unquestionable salubrity of its climate, the proof of which is shown in the annual visitation of hundreds seeking its borders for that most valuable of all nature’s gifts, there can be no question that at no distant date this young State will show a population and amount of wealth superior to many of those of far older settlement, and heretofore considered as having greater attraction for both emigrants and capital (US Congress, House, 1865 83)

He had, as had many of his predecessors, spent some time on the problem of timber trespassers. Although he reports few depredations during his first year as surveyor general, he does note that there were, “many cases that had remained unsettled of previous years’ trespasses, which I have now been able to dispose of in consequence of the logs having reached a market” (US Congress, House, 1865 83). He concludes his report, somewhat optimistically, writing “the despoiling of the public lands ... has very generally ceased” (US Congress, House, 1865 84).

1866

Nutting had expended almost all of the appropriations provided by Congress April 7, 1866 because, as he states “of the very large emigration to this State at the present time, mostly seeking the rich agricultural lands in the western and southwestern portions of the State.” (US Congress, House, 1866 440).
Once again the long-standing problem with timber trespassers occupied his attention. He writes,
Early last spring I caused a thorough examination of the pine regions, and find the depredations committed last winter were not very extensive, and many of these cases occurred through mistake or ignorance of the exact lines of the public surveys. There is reason to fear, however, that in consequence of the high price of logs and lumber, extensive depredations will be committed in the future unless some further means are taken to prevent it. To that end I recommend that the stumpage cut on the public lands be increased to four dollars ($4) per thousand feet.
As the St. Croix river is the boundary for a long distance between this State and Wisconsin, and extensive logging operations are carried on both sides, and the logs are all run into and down said river, I beg leave to recommend that the care of all the lumbering region on both sides of the St. Croix river, and tributary thereto, be put into the hands of the proper authorities of either Wisconsin or of this State. The logs from both sides come down together, and in case a seizure is necessary , much trouble is experienced in separating and securing those that can be properly seized (US Congress, House, 1866 441)

1867

Despite the fact that “the deputies sent into the field this season were considerably retarded in their operations in consequence of continued rains and high water during the first of the season” he anticipates that the work contracted for during the year would be finished on time (US Congress, House, 1867 294) (Fig.4). He writes,
The usual annual examination of trespassers on the public lands were made early in the spring, and a thorough explorations of all the logging districts shows that the depredations were not very extensive, and it is believed that all have been discovered. Collections will be made as fast as possible, and I expect to be able to collect nearly the whole amount during the next two months.
Immigration to this State during the past and present season has been very large, consisting to a great extent, of a farming population, many of whom are crowding beyond the surveyed portion of the State (US Congress, House, 1867 294)
Included in this report is a supplemental report, written after the annual report and dated October 6, 1867, describing the resources of Minnesota, a report requested by the Commissioner of the General Land Office Joseph S. Wilson, in a letter September 14 almost a week after the annual report was submitted.

1868

Nutting reports that contracts for subdividing 50 townships and 700 miles of standard and township exteriors had been let, mainly in the western part of the state, “desirable agricultural land” although settlements were spreading beyond the areas surveyed (US Congress, House, 1868 292). He also reports examining cases of timber trespass which he states are fewer than in previous years and mostly in ignorance of the survey lines.

CHESTER D. DAVISON, SURVEYOR GENERAL APRIL, 1869 - FEBRUARY, 1871 (FIG.5)

1869

Davison reports that virtually all of the contracts made by Nutting were complete. He writes,

The deputies who have been contracted with, and have gone into the field, are all experienced surveyors, and it is confidently believed that their surveys will be faithfully executed within the time fixed in their contracts. A much greater amount of the surveys in the western portion of the State this season would have been desirable, if the small appropriation had warranted it, as that locality is fast filling up with permanent settlers. Many unsurveyed townships contain now from twenty to fifty families, who are anxious that their lands should be surveyed, and the completion of the St. Paul and Pacific railroad this season, and the prospect of the Northern Pacific railroad being built at an early day, will greatly swell the tide of emigration in that direction. The country is every way desirable for settlement, and, whether surveyed or not, will speedily be overrun by settlers (US Congress, House, 1869 274).

and,

The demand for timber from the pine regions will be proportionately increased and larger surveys of these lands will be needed. In this connection I would reiterate the consideration heretofore offered for larger appropriations for field and office work than have been made for the last few years, and respectfully urge that the full amount estimated as necessary may be approved and recommended by the department (US Congress, House, 1869 275).

and,

It is believed to be for the benefit of not only the general government, but for the settlers and all concerned, that, for a few years at least, the surveys in Minnesota should be carried forward rapidly, in order to meet the exigencies consequent on the immense immigration of persons seeking permanent homes, and the rapidity with which railroads are being constructed in all parts of the State. (US Congress, House, 1869 275).

A considerable part of his first year as surveyor general had been occupied examining cases of timber trespass on the public lands. His timber agents showed that the amount of trespassing was firstly not extensive, and secondly, mainly due to ignorance of the survey. He anticipates no problem in collecting the fines that were to be levied against the individuals and corporations responsible (US Congress, House, 1869 275).

In an addendum to his annual report and published as part of the report Davison writes that the surveying district of Minnesota embraced some 53.5 million acres of which less than half had been surveyed. Most of the unsurveyed area lay in the northern part of the state and much of this area was virtually unknown. He also writes,

Of the 25,000,000 acres or thereabouts of surveyed lands, a very large proportion is good agricultural land. To these surveyed lands must be added a large region in the western and northwestern part of the State still unsurveyed, including nearly the whole of the Red River of the North. In estimating the amount of agricultural lands, I include certain districts of hard wood timber lands which, when cleared, are the very best of farming lands. I estimate the number of acres of what may properly be denominated agricultural lands at 30,000,000 acres.

In regard to the amount of mineral lands in Minnesota, too little is known as yet to give any value to an estimate. It is believed that on the north shore of Lake Superior copper and iron ores of a rich quality exist in abundance, and that the precious metals in paying quantities will be developed at Vermilion Lake, and perhaps at other point.

Of the surveyed portion of the State, it is believed that one-half of the swamplands, at least, may be reclaimed so as to be valuable for farming purposes or for meadows. In the northern and unsurveyed part, these lands will undoubtedly prove to be of less value, and a very small proportion of them reclaimable (US Congress, House, 1869 276).

He estimates 613 miles of railroad line had been completed and were in operation, and 300 miles of line were under construction (US Congress, House, 1869 276).

1870

Davison reports that he did not get notification of the amount of his appropriation until August 3, thus he was unable to make all of the contracts that were authorized. Clearly the appropriations were increased, he stated, “the generous appropriation for field-work for the current year will go far toward enabling me to meet the increased demand s for settlement “(US Congress, House, 1870 342).

CHESTER T. BROWN, SURVEYOR GENERAL, FEBRUARY, 1871 - OCTOBER, 1873 (FIG.6)

1871

Brown describes his first year on office, thusly,

Most of the region of the country surveyed in the past year is of a character that has made the office-work, particularly in the draughting department, slow and tedious. This has been remarkably the case with the surveys within the limits of the Northern Pacific Railroad. Lakes almost without number are found, and the topography of the country generally is of a character that necessitates a great amount of labor in the construction of maps fully and accurately showing the same.
The established fact that the Northern Pacific Railroad and the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad will be completed to the red River this season is causing a volume of emigration to the northwestern part of the State, unprecedented in any previous year. In Otter Tail and Becker Counties, and in nearly the whole extent of the valley of the Red River, settlements are being made with astonishing rapidity. It is estimated that along the line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and in the region above mentioned, not less than 30,000 inhabitants will be added to the permanent population of the State during the present season.

Other parts of the State have also received large accessions of settlers during the year.

The immense emigration, already greatly in advance of the surveys, is the principal reason for the large estimate for field and office work for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, .... It would seem to be of very great advantage to all concerned for the Government settlers and railroad companies to have the surveys, for a few years at least, rapidly extended (US Congress, House, 1871 131)

Like others before him, he complained about being the federal timber agent and thus obligated to collect money from those who trespassed on public lands and cut timber. He states,

The duties required of timber agent occupy much time for their faithful performance, and in many instances are vexatious and troublesome, and those services are required without compensation whatever, which seems to be an unreasonable exaction. For the better care and preservation of timber on the public lands I would recommend that an examiner be employed by the year, whose sole business should be to look after trespassers, and report from time to time to the timber agent (US Congress, House, 1871, 131).

He asks that he be allowed to employ “an examiner of public surveys” rather than to appoint a deputy to carry out the duties.

1872

Brown writes,

The season has not, however, so far been favorable for prosecuting work in the field, particularly in the Red River Valley, owing to the great amount of rainfall that has fallen, causing the valley to overflow to an unusual extent: more timber and brush is also found here than was anticipated, making the surveys slower and more expensive than was hoped for (US Congress, House, 1872, 89).

He states that he wants to run the standard parallels, correction lines, and township exteriors at least one year ahead of the subdivisions. In addition he notes,

Trespasses on the public lands in the pine regions still continue to some extent, and undoubtedly will until these lands are disposed of, or more severe penalties are exacted. I shall continue to do what can be done with under the present regulations to prevent spoilations on these lands, but cannot hope to be entirely successful, so long as there is a possibility of escaping detection and the temptation remains (US Congress, House, 1872 89).

1873

There is no narrative to accompany the statistical information.

DANA E. KING, SURVEYOR GENERAL, OCTOBER, 1873 - MAY 1875 (FIG. 7)

1874

King produced only one report. He writes,

The appropriations for public surveys in this district for the present year was made near the close of the session of Congress. Contracts have been entered into with experienced deputies, and parties are now in the field. The time has been so short, however, since contracts were made, that no reports have been received from the deputies, but I am confident that all the surveys under contract will be efficiently and faithfully executed within the time fixed in the contracts (US Congress, House, 1874 86).

He asks for more money to carry out what he considers to be the necessary work to satisfy the demands of settlers, noting,

The demand for mineral and timbered lands is so great that it would seem to be but just to the settler, miner, and explorer, and not impolitic for the Government, from the fact that a considerable revenue will be obtained from the sale of these lands, and at the same time furnishing material protection to the timbered lands in preventing depredation and consequent destruction of much valuable timber by fire & c. (US Congress, House, 1874 86-7).

Conclusion

During the decade 1865-1874 the public land survey spread northwards and westwards across Minnesota. Familiar issues concerned the four surveyors general during that period, the demands for land ownership and the difficulty of protecting publicly owned timberland from trespassers, for example. However the demand for land was being created by a new form of transportation and communication, the railroad, and by the speculation that there were valuable minerals under some of the lands, especially in the northern part of the state. Both of these forces would ultimately become powerful in the settlement and economic development of Minnesota.

Bibliography

Squires, Rod., “The public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1847-1852” Dis-closures (Winter, 1993) 10-17.
Squires, Rod., “Public land survey in Minnesota Territory, 1853-1857” Dis-closures (Spring, 1993) 18-24.
Squires, Rod., “The public land survey in Minnesota, 1857-1860” Minnesota Surveyor (Spring, 1994) 16-20.
Squires, Rod., “The public land survey in Minnesota, 1862-1965” Minnesota Surveyor vol.2,2 (1995) 18-23.
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1865, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1248
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1866, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1284
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1867, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1326.
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1868, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1366
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1869, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1414
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1870, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1449
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1871, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1505
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1872, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1560
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1873, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1601
US Congress, House, Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office for 1874, H.exec.doc.1. Serial 1639

The Public Land Survey in Minnesota 1875-1879

Introduction

Although I write about the historical geography of the public land survey, observant readers should have noticed that several related historical geographies document the development and>

Transfer interrupted!

nd survey. One depicts how the nationwide process was administered by the federal government (Squires, 1992a). A second portrays how the the basic framework of intersecting lines that comprises the survey system evolved, a framework that includes the lines defining the rectangular townships, sections, and quarter-sections and the less recatangular fractional townships and government lots, the lines used for reference, prime meridians and baselines (Squires, 1992b), and the lines used to accurately place the rectangular grid on the curved surface of the United States, correction lines, standard parallels, and guide meridians. Yet a third shows how the survey spread across particular areas over a period of time, the subject of many of my earlier papers (Squires, 1993a,b, 1994, 1995, 1996b). A fourth shows how individual surveyors moved from one area to another as they contracted with the federal government to create the points and lines of the monumented survey net (Squires, 1996a). There are more historical geographies, describing how various surveying techniques and practices evolved and where they were used for example, or where specific instructions were used. These historical geographies can all be explained in terms of the technical developments associated with surveying and the sociopolitical changes, both affecting the entire nation, and the idiosyncratic choices made by individual surveyors and non-surveyors working and living in particular areas, changes that form part of a complex behavioral system. Episodes in the survey’s historical geography occur as these changes create patterns on the land surface. Understanding these patterns, that also comprise episodes in the fragmentation of Minnesota, provides a key to understanding the modern Minnesota landscape.

Many aspects of the historical geography, including the speed with which the public land survey spread across Minnesota was primarily determined by the amount of money Congress annually appropriated to the surveying district. As federal funds became available the surveyor general, who administered the survey in the surveying district of Minnesota, entered into contracts either with individual deputy surveyors, or with two or three individuals in partnership, to perform the necessary fieldwork. Where the deputies worked, hence the direction the survey net moved in any one year, depended largely on the opinions of the surveyor general who communicated with the deputies as they completed their contracts and carried out his own examination forays into frontier Minnesota. These opinions, both concerning the amount of money required and the direction that the survey should proceed was transmitted to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, through him to the Secretary of the Interior and from him to the United States Congress.

The historical geography of the survey of Minnesota during the period 1875-1879 is primarily told in the annual reports of the surveyor general, James Heaton Baker, published as part of the Commissioner of the General Land Office’s annual report in the Congressional Documents (Serial Set). In his report Baker highlights the status of the survey, problems associated with particular areas or particular contracts, and recommends which areas to survey in the immediate future. These reports are the basic material from which a description of the public land survey geography must start, providing a broad framework for the survey and, since they explains who surveyed where, are valuable for the modern surveyor (Squires, 1992). Individually these reports comprise only one letter in one letterbook, however, one item in the voluminous correspondence files kept by the surveyor general. Not surprisingly other letters, comprising the letters sent and the letters received by the surveyor general’s office in St. Paul, provide additional information regarding this geography (Squires, 1994). More importantly, the correspondence files provide the basic material for another geography, a geography that describes the work of individual deputies, the true pioneers of Minnesota (Squires, 1995, 1996a). Letters outline in considerable detail the trials and tribulations of individuals who worked under difficult and dangerous conditions and upon whose skill and integrity depended the accuracy of the rectangular net. These letters, more than any other documents, give a human face to the geography of the survey and, along with the field notes and personal papers of the individuals, add necessary complexity and richness to the broad framework described in the annual reports.

The geography of the survey in a particular year is easily explained. The surveyor general makes contracts with deputies to survey those areas where the demand for land is greatest from existing and prospective settlers, in areas that appeared valuable for agriculture, timber, or mining for example, or that lie within the limits of a federal land grant to a railroad company, or within the boundaries of a federal Indian reservation. The geography of the work of individual deputies in a particular year is explicable in terms of the object of the surveyor general. However, the geography of the work of the individual deputy over time, is more difficult to explain, hence is more intriguing. There is, perhaps no need to ascribe any other motive than economic survival to individual deputies - the survey contracts were available only in certain places therefore there was little choice about where they would go. Without doubt, the pay was important in an era when other employment opportunities were scarce, but presumably as time went by, and other jobs became available, both the pay and the rigors of camp life became less attractive. Perhaps the idea of blazing a trail in the wilderness appealed to some, as did the idea of identifying and delimiting valuable timber stands and potential mineral areas as well as water power sites and town sites either for themselves or for others. The “idiosyncratic geography” of individual surveyors would repay serious study, some were employed for long periods of time while others completed one contract only, some worked merely in one part of the state while others took contracts in various parts of the state (see Appendix).

In 1875 James Heaton Baker was commissioned surveyor general of Minnesota by republican President Ulysses S. Grant. Baker, born in Ohio in 1829 had already compiled a lengthy public service record culminating in his appointment as the federal Secretary of Pensions from 1871 to 1875 by President Grant. He had arrived in Minnesota in 1857 and had been elected Secretary of State (1860-1862) before joining the Tenth Minnesota Regiment and serving first in the Sioux campaign (1862-1863) and then in the Civil War reaching the rank of brigadier general. When he took over his duties from Dana E. King, who had been appointed when Charles T. Brown had resigned as surveyor general in February 1871, the survey had reached the Red River valley in the northwest, the shores of Lake Superior in the northeast and had spread across the north central part of the state to the tenth standard parallel and the sixth correction line. During his four-year tenure the surveys continued in the northwestern part of the state, to the international boundary and east of the Red River Valley, along the international boundary in the northeast and in the central portion (Fig. 1).

1875

The bulk of the letters conatined in the Letterbooks consist of correspondence between Baker and his superior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office (GLO). Shortly after assuming his duties on May 1, Baker received a letter in which the Commissioner described how much money Comgress had appropriated for the following fiscal year for surveying operations in Minnesota, including the amount for salaries, for office expenses, and the rate per mile for lines. In the letter, dated May 8, Commissioner Burdett states,

It is expressly declared in the seventh section of the Act of July 12, 1870, that no more money than that appropriated shall be spent and that the Government shall not be involved in any contract for the future payment of money in excess of such appropriations. In order therefore to avoid an excess of the appropriations and thus obviate the necessity for submitting deficiency estimates you will let contracts to the amount of $27,000 only, retaining the remaindet of the appropriation $3,000 to meet any unforeseen excesses of contracts which may arise. If it should be ascertained before the close of the fiscal year that the contracts do not exceed the amounts estimated or that the amount retained is more than sufficient to meet the excess the balance may then be used (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 81-82)

This letter describes more than the financial context for the following year’s surveys because in it the Commissioner gives some direction for the future surveys. Surprisingly, given the constant complaints of timber trespass by previous surveyors general, he admonishes Baker not to give priority to surveying timber lands but rather to the interests of actual settlers, however “the general selection of localities is left to your judgement”(Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 82). Interestingly, he writes,

You will during the ensuing season cause the corrections to be made on the Indian boundary in Township 148 North of Range 39 West 5th P.M. and calculate the fractional areas on both sides of the line and furnish authenticated plats to this office and to the local land office (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 83).

He also advises on field procedures,

In addition to the requirements of the Manual of Surveying Instructions and the Supplement of June 1, 1864, you will direct your deputies in all cases where stones are used for corners to dig pits in the same manner as for corners marked by posts and mounds (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 83).

And,

You are requested to exercise great care in examining returns of surveys with a view to guarding against imperfect or fraudulent surveys, and, when deemed necessary, an examination in the field may be made, but before preceding to the field upon such examination you will state the reasons therefore to this office whereupon an amount sufficient to cover the expense will be assigned by the commissioner out of the appropriation of $10,000 “for occasional examinations” (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 83).

On May 17 Baker asks Burdett that the clerks of his office be paid monthly, as other government employees were, rather than quarterly. In replying, July 23, the Commissioner states,

(T)he system of rendering accounts quarterly was inaugurated in 1797 by instructions from Treasury Department under authority of law passed March 3, 1789 empowering the Secretary of the Treasury to precribe the necessary rules for the ... financial concerns of the government.

As this rules has ever since that time been observed without any modification on the part of Congress or the proper Department I deem it inexpedient, at this late period in the surveying service in Minnesota, to recommend a deviation from the method which existed during the pasy seventy-eight years and being satisfied that the suggested innovation, if authorized, would unduly increase the labors of the employes (sic) in you office as well as in this and the Treasury Departments refrain from attempting making arrangements looking to the modification suggested (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 136-7).

Later in the year the Commisioner of the GLO asks for an estimate for the following fiscal year ending June 30th, 1877, writing,

In your explanation you will state the locality of the lands intended to be surveyed, their availibility either for agriculture, timber, mineral or other purposes and whether the surveys would embrace settlements already made or likely to be demanded for early occupation.

In view of the fact that in former years surveys have been extended over distant localities sometimes undesirable for settlement on account of their arid, sterile, or alkaline character and as such unfit for cultivation, and as even the surveys of arable lands made in distant regions without any demands from settlers, have proved unavailable and the evidnace of surveys in the field become obliterated by fires, lapse of time or other causes, this office deems it judicious to arrest in future, the continuance of a practice which has obtained in some surveying districts, and to this end I have to direct you to restrict your contemplated surveys to localities calculated to accomodate actual settlements and to furnish this office with the explanation of the estimate so that it may be enabled to lay the same before the Committee on Appropriations in support of the sum estimated (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 140-141).

In his first annual report dated August 26, 1875 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875, Baker, who had only assumed duties as the surveyor general of Minnesota two months earlier, on May 1, 1875, provides little information other than the required statistics; (a) a statement of the amount, character, and present condition of the field work - those that were uncompleted when the last annual report was compiled and those for which deputies had been contracted since then, either by him or by his predecessor; (b) a statement of the plats that had been made (original, Commissioner’s, and receiver’s), and when they had been sent to the Commissioner in Washington DC. and to the local land-offices; (c) a statement of townships that had been surveyed from the last annual report, August 3, 1874, to the present time showing the area and the number of miles surveyed in each, including meander lines, the number of miles of township lines surveyed, and the total number of acres surveyed; (d) an estimate of the appropriations required for continuing the public surveys in Minnesota for the fiscal year July 1, 1876 to June 30, 1877; and (e) a statement of the incidental expenses of the office for the current fiscal year. He also transmitted a map of Minnesota at a scale of twelve miles to one inch showing the progress of the survey at that time, a map I have yet to find.

He reports some twenty contracts let by his predecessor had been completed during the fiscal year 1874-5, that is from July 1, 1874 - June 30, 1875, contracts that had not been let or were in progress when the previous annual report had been submitted. These contracts span two calendar years, those that were completed after August 3, 1874, when his predecesor submitted the annual report for fiscal year 1873-4 but before the end of the calendar year, and those that were completed after the start of the calendar year but before August 26, 1875, when he wrote his report. Most of these surveys, all completed before the end of the fiscal year, were chargeable to the appropriations made by Congress in 1873 for the fiscal year 1874-5. The sole exception was the contract awarded to Benjamin C. Baldwin for subdividing the White Earth Indian Reservation, work that was paid out of Indian appropriation act of June 23, 1874.

Baker let six contracts under the appropriations for fiscal year 1875-6 none of which had been completed at the time of his report. One of them was to Benjamin C. Baldwin to survey part of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation, dated June 24, 1875, a contract that was the subject of an interesting exchange recounted below, the others were for both exterior lines and subdivisions of particular township. Thus, by this time the practice of awarding contracts for exteriors and subdivisions to different deputies, to provide checks on the accuracy of the fieldwork, had been abandoned. In the case of one particular contract, awarded to John Hinchilwood, one of the township lines was also the third guide meridian.

Not surprisingly, many of the letters from the surveyor general to the Commissioner of the General Land Office deal with contracts with deputies. On September 17, he writes,

I have the honor to transmit herewith, contract with Edwin S. Hall, deputy surveyor, dated September 1, 1875, liability $2,800 payable out of appropriation named therein. Also statement and certificate of his qualification for the office. Mr. Cronk who certifies to Mr. Hall’s fitness, is an old deputy (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 369).

There were several letters regarding island surveys. On December 21st. Baker writes to the Commissioner,

Where small islands are surveyed at the expense of private individuals, under the provisions of the 10th section of the Act of March 30th, 1862, as set forth in paragraph 7 on page 6 of the supplement to the manual of instructions; and said islands are within the district of lands heretofore offered at public sale, are said islands subject to private entry or sale, or must they be advertised and offered at public sale first (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 395).

The Commissioner answers December 28th.,

Lands of this class where surveyed become subject to the operation of the homestead and pre-emption laws, or, after due notice by the local land officers pursuant to instructions from the Commissioner as contemplated by Section 5 of the Act of August 3, 1846, may be sold for cash to the highest bidder, and if not disposed of in this way, will then become subject to private cash entry, warrant, or scrip location (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 219).

Many individuals write to the surveyor general. Typical of letter from deputies was one from William Mulliken, June 26 1875, three weeks after he was awarded a contract. Mulliken writes of his qualifications for the job,

I would respectfully certify that I have studied and am familiar with said Manual of Instructions; that I have been a Civil Engineers by profession since the year 1853, to the present time; and have been employed as Assistant and Resident Engineer in the location and construction of Railways in the States of Ohio and Indiana from 1853 to 1856; as Land Agent of the Illinois Central RR. Co. From 1856 to 1859; as Civil Engineer on Railways in Wisconsin from 1860 to 1863, and from 1863 to 1865 as Assistant Engineer under D.C.Shepard Esq. late Chief Engineer Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway in Minnesota. During the year 1865 I resurveyed and sub-divided lands in the Oil Region of Pennsylvania. I have, since the year 1866 been employed more or less on private surveys in tracing township and section lines and sub-dividing sections in Minnesota according to the requirements and instructions to Deputy-Surveyors.

I have also been Chief Clerk of the U.S.Land Office at St. Cloud, Minn. from 1869 to 1873 and am perfectly familiar with all the details and instructions to U.S.Deputy Surveyors (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 112-113).

Mulliken was working in the extreme northwestern portion of the state, on the international boundary (Fig.2). When the surveyor general forwarded his work to Washington the Commissioner writes, asking for clarification,

Referring to the transcripts of field notes of surveys by Wm. Mulliken transmitted with your letter of 30th ult. I have to request that you inform this office of the meaning of the letters “c.c.” which frequently occur in said field notes, as I find no authority in the manual for such abbreviation. I have also to request that you furnish this office with more detail regarding the intersections made in the above surveys with the International Boundary, giving the number of the boundary post intersected, and a full description of the post if you have such information on file (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 195-6).

On November 20, two weeks after the Commissioner wrote, Baker answers,

The north boundary of Tp.164, had it been a full Tp. would have been a standard parallel and the letters “C.C.” would designate “closing corners” as directed on page 15 of the Manual: but it being the terminus of surveys in that direction, the letters were used to designate the closing corners on the International Boundary: but the intersections of the north and south lines were not marked as the iron monuments only occur at intervals of two miles: The deputy took notes of the intersection in running the north boundary line of Tp.164, but omitted them in the returns to this office. They are as follows .... (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 387).

After giving the intersections Baker notes how the international boundary is marked,

The monuments are not renumbered; are of cast iron, 8 inches square at base, graduated to 4 inches, and terminating at a point; stand 4 feet high above the ground; marked on the north side - “Convention of London”, on the south side “October 20th 1818”. All the posts set by the deputy on this line are three cornered; marked on the north side “C.C.” and on the other two sides the number of the section they face, and the Tp and range to which they belong (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 387).

Perhaps the most interesting letters for present-day surveyors consists of those concerning Benjamin Baldwin’s contract (Fig.2). On September 14, he writes,

In prosecuting the work of subdividing the unsurveyed portion of Leech Lake Indian Reservation under my contract dated June 24th 1875, I have found the Township lines as heretofore run & established (so far as I have been able to find them at all) to be so badly run and so erroneous that I have found it impossible to close my work upon them with any degree of accuracy & I have been obliged to rerun the lines & to correct the work so that the subdivisions might be properly made. As for example, The South boundary of Township 143 Range 31, I found as follows, The South boundary of Sec. 31 is but 69.17 chains long instead of 83.28 as given in the plat furnished me. The south boundary of Sec.33 to the meander corner is 39.90 instead of 47.30 as represented, & the dist. across Leech Lake on this line I found by careful triangulation, to be 37.00 chains ... (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII, 163).

The indications are that most of the Township lines throughout the reservation will be found equally as bad if not worse & I ask for definite instructions as to what I shall do in such cases, whether I shall rerun the lines & make the changes necessary for a proper subdivision of the Townships or not. If I rerun the lines will I be paid for the work so done. The irregularity of the Town lines is subjecting me to great delay & expense in prosecuting my work. I have already been employed over 15 days, with a crew of men, in hunting up and rerunning Township lines, & I cannot afford to do it without proper compensation. (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 164)

Two days later, Baker transmits Baldwin’s letter to the Commissioner of the GLO asking for instructions, stating,

Mr. Baldwin is a man who ranks high in his profession and in character; and I place implicit confidence in his statement. It appears from his letter that the work of running the township lines on said reservation was very imperfectly done. I find by the correspondence in this office that complaints were made against the work during its progress; and the inclosed (sic) letter, giving the result of personal investigation by a thoroughly competent surveyor, fully confirms said charges and shows some of the defects complained of were not remedied. As Mr. Baldwin’s contract is for the completion of the survey of the reservation, it would seem proper that such action be taken at this time, as shall insure perfect work and prevent trouble in the future (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 368).

Commissioner Burdett replied on September 27, writing,

I have to say that where the exterior lines of townships which Mr. B. has contracted to subdivide are found by him to be much out of proper position and such exterior lines do not constitute the boundaries of Tps or fractional Tps formerly subdivided, you will instruct the deputy to make the necessary corrections of the town lines in order to properly subdivide the Tps. But where the Tp. has been in part formerly subdivided or the corners on the town lines constitute the boundaries of sections already surveyed, the Deputy will not be allowed to disturb such corners but will close his lines upon them in order that the former adjoining subdivisions may be maintained. In cases where the Tp. Lines are corrected the Deputy must obliterate the old corners including the witnesses thereto and mention the same in his field notes. The deputy will be paid for such work out of the amount of $16,000 heretofore assigned provided that the whole work under contract does not exceed that sum (Letterbook, Letters Received, LXII 176-7)

As a result Baker writes to Baldwin, quoting the letter he received from the Commissioner, October 2. In addition he notes,

You will therefore make such corrections, and re-run such township lines, as in your best judgement shall seem to be absolutely necessary for a faithful performance of your duties and within the limits prescribed in the Commissioner’s letter quoted above, making full notes of such work, as therein directed, and in making up your accounts the same will be carried to your credit to the extent of the $16,000 assigned for the surveys comprised in your contract of June 24 (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 374).

N.B. These are important letters. As far as I am aware they created a precedent. In them the deputy is clearly given explicit instructions to move previously established corners and thus violate federal law and accepted practice. The intent was to ensure that any corners so moved would not affect a township already subdivided. A question can be raised: how did Baker and other surveyors act in subsequent cases where other measurements were “clearly” in error?

He writes to Samuel E. Stebbins, who had been awarded a contract September 15 dated September 27,

Since the date of your contract, Sept 15th, 1875, for surveying and establishing the Eighth Correction Line, the deputy who had the contract for surveying township 60 N. of ranges 26 & 27 W. 4th P.M. which closes on said correction line, has completed his work in the field, leaving his closing corners open on said line. You will therefore plant on your line in ranges 26 & 27 the double set of corners, and mark the same, and make such measurements as may be necessary to connect the closing corners; in accordance with the instructions on page 15 of the manual. You will also obliterate any temporary section, or quarter section corners which may have been established on said line by the deputy who subdivided the townships (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 389).

The surveyor general corresponds with other individuals interested in the course and outcome of the survey. For example, he advises county surveyors on the proper course of procedure. On August 24, for example, replying to a letter dated August 15 from W.A.Fuller, the Scott County surveyor residing in Shakopee, he writes,

By Acts of Congress approved Feb. 11th, 1805, Feb 22d, 1817 and April 5, 1832 subdivisional section lines are required to be run straight from one half mile post to the opposite corresponding corner, in all cases and wherever the act of the legislature lays down a different rule, it conflicts with the acts of Congress; but this office cannot undertake to make the U.S. and State laws harmonize but must be governed by the former. The excess or deficiencies in the cases you mention should be divided proportionately. The quarter sec. post and meander post No.8 in Sec.33 Tp.115 R.21 are one and the same, and the east and west 1/4 line runs through the lake. There is no man employed in this office who could be sent to do the surveying that you mention (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 343).

He writes to Sven Arneson, an individual living in Vineland, Yellow Medicine County on August 24,

There is no law that will justify this office in authorizing the change of any 1/4 sec. post in sec.20 Tp.114 R.40 or elsewhere. After the field notes and plats have been returned by the deputy surveyors, and the surveys approved by the Comr. Of the Gen’l Land Office, and rights have accrued to individuals under such survey, no change can be made (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 344).

And on September 17, he writes to President of the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, John S.Pillsbury responding to Pillsbury’s request that he take steps “as will secure to the State University such sections of land (pine) as it may be entitled to by law” (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 369). He states,

By the Act of Congress of July 8th, 1870, the selections are to be made by the Governor of the State. I am not sure that this office will be in possession of such definite information as will enable the Governor to make good selection from our records. Our returns only show the general surface character of the country, without defining the timbered, or other value of particular subdivisions. If such information and knowledge as this office procures can be made available, and the matter meets the approval of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, I shall take great pleasure in cooperating with the Governor and the Board of Regents in securing to the University the very best results possible (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 369)

Curiously, he received only one letter asking for employment, and that in his capacity as timber agent. It is a strange letter!. On October 19, Samuel Estes writing from Brunswick, Canabeck County, writes,

I don some work for James H. Spencer in april. there is a balance 21$ du me he has not paid me according to agreement will you be so kind as to keep that amount back for me if you will give me the job I will hunt up and scale and report the balance for i think he dose not report one half of the trespass he finds but sells out as he can find custimers send me the amount of trespass he has reported in the county I will let you no if he has reported all and i will go and do the balance for you if you request (Letterbook, Letters Received , LXII 188-189)

At this time the surveyor general was still responsible for examining cases of timber trespass, individuals logging the trees from land still owned by the federal government. Baker, who signed himself surveyor general and timber agent, writes to George A. Brackett, the Surveyor General of Logs and Lumber for Minnesota, who was responsible for measuring (scaling) the amount of timber floating down the various rivers, in Minneapolis,

This office is in possession of information showing that about 476,000 feet of logs were cut upon lands belonging to the United States, and without any authority whatever. The mark on said logs is as follows: “J”(?) . They were cut by W.N.Lawrence and are alleged to have been sold or consigned to W.B.Judd of Minneapolis. I desire that you will cause such logs to be surveyed and consigned to D.Morrison & Sons, as the property of the United States. I send through your office the same information to the Boom Master (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 327)

The poscript reads “This course is adopted in this case as both the trespasser and the consignee are bankrupt” (Letterbook, Letters Sent, N 327).

The story of the survey under surveyor general Baker in succeeding years will be continued in the next issue of the Minnesota Surveyor.

Appendix

The correspondence files of the surveyor general, letterbooks containing letters sent and letters received are the obvious source of information concerning individual contracts and problems associated with those. The files also contain a vast amount of material between surveyor general Baker and his superior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, until June 1876 Samuel S. Burdett, and then James A. Williamson relating to the contracts. All of these letters are indexed by name of the recipient or sender. To effectively use the letterbooks you must know the name of an individual and the year in which the correspondence was made.

The Public Land Survey 1875-1878 (continued)

In the last paper I described some of the letters sent and received by the Minnesota Surveyor General James H. Baker in the first year of his appointment,1875, as a way of understanding the several historical geographies of the public land survey. Here I look at examples of the correspondence, in a broadly chronological fashion, for the remainder of Baker’s appointment, which lasted until April 3, 1879.

The bulk of the correspondence consists of letters between the surveyor general and the Commissioner of the General Land Office and between the surveyor general and the deputy surveyors in the field, letters describing how the survey was administered and where and how the points and lines that defined the townships and sections spread in the northern portion the state. An increased number of letters, from deputies working in the field and from others, noted surveying errors.

1876

The surveyor general was relieved of the responsibility for investigating allegations and instances of timber trespass which he had been given in 1862. Several letters illustrate the problem of timber trespass, the source of continuing complaints, and the way in which James Baker discharged his obligations. On January 6 he appoints two timber agents.

I do hereby constitute and appoint Chas. E. Thurston and James H. Spencer, deputy timber agents to examine and report all timber trespass on lands belonging to the United States, east of the Mississippi River and west of the 4th Principal Meridian; and to report the names of all trespassers , the amount and location of such trespass, and if by second or third parties, for whose ultimate benefit the trespass was committed , and the names of any parties who may be used as witnesses in case of prosecution, and to warn all parties to top such depredations on penalty of prosecution and forfeiture of the timber so cut and removed (Letters Sent, vol. N 400).

A few months, on April 5, 1876 the Auditor of Wadena County writes to him,

One S S Gardner of Wadena, Wadena County Minnesota - has cut & hauled and has piled up near the track here some ... 200 cords of wood cut off Sec.32 T 135 R 35 West.

The greater portion of this wood is off from State Swamp lands on said sec. - to wit S2 of SE4 & SW4 of NW4. That cut from government is from SE4 & SW4 & NW4 & E2 of NW4 & some off from n2 of SE4. I am going to confiscate the whole pile as State agt and my idea is that the State and Government had better work together and then make an estimate & divide pro rata. As it is now the wood is all mixed up and owing to the depth of the snow it is impossible to get an estimate at this time (Letters Received, LXIII 40).

The above is merely one of several such letters from county officials and private individuals drawing attention to particular instances of timber trespass. Some of these letters allude to the fact that the Northern Pacific Railroad Company construction activities were creating a demand for railroad ties and thus prompting an increase in such illegal activities. There are also letters from attorneys representing clients accused of such trespass. On July 21, the surveyor general received welcome news from the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

This office has concluded, after consultation with the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, to relieve you of the care and preservation of the public timber in the State of Minnesota, which duty was imposed upon the then Surveyor General by letters from this office to him of the 6th February, 1862, and the (letter of) 6th November 1862, for reasons more particularly given in letter from this office to him of the 15th October of that year, as based on the circumstances of the state of civil war which then existed. The registers and receivers of the several district land offices in the State will hereafter discharge the duties of timber agents in their respective districts, under the circular of December 24, 1855, copy herewith. To them, you will accordingly report any case of timber trespass which may hereafter come to your knowledge. You will extend to them every facility in your power for the discharge of their duties in respect to the public timber. With this in view, you will furnish them with copies of any correspondence in you possession having a bearing on the subject which they desire (Letters Received LXIII 113-115).

Not surprisingly, this letter prompted a flurry of correspondence between the surveyor general and the local land officers regarding what Baker should do with the evidence of trespass he already possessed, and between Baker and the Commissioner regarding compensation for timber agents Baker employed without the authority and knowledge of the GLO (Letter Received LXIII 121-130; 177-184).

There were many concerns regarding alleged surveying errors. On January 7 Baker writes to M.P.Noel of St. Cloud,

Your letter of Dec. 20th 1875, with diagrams attached, addressed to the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington, charging error in the location of meander post No. 24 between sections 32 & 33 in township 123 N of range 31 W. 5th P.M., has been referred to this office for such action as may be deemed proper.

This township was surveyed by Gen. H.P. Van Cleve in September and October 1857; and in December of the same year Mr. Edward D. Atwater, under an appointment from the Surveyor General to examine and report as to the correctness of said survey, proceeded to the field and made a personal examination of the work. Mr. Atwater confirmed the work done by Gen. Van Cleve, and did not deem it necessary to change any of the lines, posts, or monuments. I quote from his report: “The North and South lines are very well chained, but are rather crooked owing to sudden changes in the variation of the needle.”

Upon receiving Mr. Atwater’s report the Surveyor General approved the notes of Gen. Van Cleve, and the same have stood the test of eighteen years without being questioned. Under these circumstances I deem it inexpedient and bad policy to authorize any changes in the line or location of the meander post complained of (Letters Sent vol. N 401).

Clearly Baker seems confident of his legal position regarding errors that were later found in the survey monumentation. This would not be the last such letter he would receive about errors, however. On September 13 Baker writes to James A. Williamson, the new Commissioner of the General Land Office, concerning a different survey problem, the absence of corners and bearing trees.

Several complaints have been made at this office, that township 41 north of range 24 west 4th Principal Meridian, Minnesota, surveyed by Isaac A. Banker, under contract dated Aug. 22d 1855, was very imperfectly surveyed.

The Land Commissioner of the Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad informs me that it is impossible to locate the lines between the RR lands and those belonging to the government, or private individuals, owing to the absence of corners or bearing trees, or any indications that they were ever established. A few corners have been found in the eastern part of the township, but the west half is almost entirely destitute of any section corners or bearing trees.

The noticeable absence of corners and bearing trees in this township would seem to favor the presumption that they were never properly established. The Statutes at Large of Minnesota Chapter 11, provided for the relocation and re-establishment of section corners lost or destroyed, at the expense of the county in which the land is situated.

Under the circumstances I beg leave to ask whether this office is authorized to afford any relief in the premises (sic), and if so, in what way? Or should the whole matter be remedied by the County Officers under State Law? (Letters Sent vol. N 487).

Unfortunately there is no letter in reply. But on October 6th, Baker is quite definite about his legal position regarding missing corners. He writes to Samuel Jolley in Kedron,

The town having been once surveyed and the notes approved, this office can take no further action in the matter. It is the duty of the County surveyor to reestablish missing corners in accordance with the government field notes, and any appeal from his acts must be made to the courts (Letters sent vol. N 493).

Baker’s assertion that the obligations of the federal governments regarding monuments and lines ended once the notes had been approved and the plats received at the local land office was not noticed by some. He continued to receive letters complaining of missing corners. On December 17th Geo.W.Cooley of Minneapolis writes,

I would like to receive a commission as U.S. Deputy Surveyor with authority and instructions to reestablish U.S. Corners that may be partially destroyed or are becoming obscure in this county or a greater territory if you deem it advisable. My reasons for asking it are as follows - Within the thickly settled portion of this county there are perhaps not one fourth of the corners in a good state of preservation and perhaps one tenth that can only be properly established by a person of long experience and thorough practical acquaintance with the principles of Govt. Surveying. I have had an almost continuous experience for twelve years on U.S. lines, original and resurveys, and have during the past five years reestablished from original evidence over one hundred corners in this county. There would be no expense attached to it as I could collect from parties interested and would return to the S.G.O. yearly or oftener if required a Book of Reestablishment of Corners.

As I now have control of nearly all of the work in Hennepin and a large country business I could assist in the preservation of U.S. lines to an extent that would prove a great benefit to the department and to the people. My remuneration would come in through an increased business.

Of course I would be governed by the U.S. Laws which I thoroughly understand (Letters Received, LXIII 191-192).

Two days later Baker replies as he did to Samuel Jolley, that the county was responsible for replacing or reestablishing missing corners, adding,

The Legislature of Minnesota has provided for the re-establishment of lost corners under the direction of the County Commissioners, and in certain cases authorizes them to employ any competent surveyor of the County (See Bissell’s Stats. of Minn. Chap. XI Title XI Secs.130 &132). This office has no jurisdiction in the matter after the original survey has been completed and approved (Letters Sent vol. N 509)

The are instances in which obvious survey errors were corrected, however, especially errors on what might be called special lines, lines established by deputies but not part of the rectangular public land survey net. On January 11th Baker received the following letter from the Commissioner of the GLO.

I have to inform you that upon re-examination of the returns of survey of the boundary line of the Red Lake Indian Reserve by T.G.Merrill D.S. under contract dated Nov. 21 -1872, in connection with the eastern boundary by Nathan Butler D.S. under contract of march 26 - 1875, I am satisfied that said line by Deputy Merrill was not established in the proper place. You are therefore directed to cause to be noted upon the plats of Township 148 N. R. 33 W. That the portion of Section 4 within the reserve and sections 5,6,7 and 8, and that part of section 9 on the west side of the boundary line, is to be withheld from sale or disposal until the SE boundary is definitely established, also cause the fractional areas to be calculated upon both sides of the north eastern boundary line in this township, in section 4-8 and 9. Amend the original and triplicate accordingly and furnish this office with a diagram of the same, after which you will please file the triplicate plats of Township 148 N. Rgs. 32 and 33 in the proper local Land Office. You will be advised by this office when exigency will require a re-survey of the line erroneously surveyed by Deputy Merrill (Letters received, LXIII 7-8)

Such corrections were rare and only attempted in relatively isolated cases when the correction would have little impact on the adjacent section and township lines. This particular case has an amusing twist. On January 18th Baker writes to the register at the St. Cloud Land District Office, “To enable us to comply with his instructions, will you please send your plat of the above Tp. to this office by return mail, that the line may be platted and the areas calculated on each side. We will make the corrections at once and return the plat to you” (Letter Sent vol. N 405). On January 20 the register at St. Cloud replies saying that he could not return a plat for “amendment and correction” as there was no law that would allow him to do so (Letters Received, LXIII 12).

On January 15th the surveyor general outlines the process of privately surveying an island, the subject of numerous letters . He writes to Abraham S. Dickinson, Lake Johanna in Pope County,

Your letter of Jan. 1st. with diagram attached setting forth your action on having an island surveyed in Lake Johanna and asking that such steps be taken as will give you a title to that land embraced therein is received. Your course hardly conforms to the laws of the United States and the regulations of the General Land Office. The proper mode of procedure is as follows: You must give at least thirty days to all owners of land on the shores of the lake opposite the island, that you intend to make application for the survey thereof. This office will then furnish you with blanks upon which to make application. At the same time you will be required to forward to this office an amount of money sufficient to pay all the expenses of such survey, platting etc. to be deposited in a U.S. Depository. A contract will then be entered into with some competent surveyor to do the work and the returns will be made to this office. After the survey is completed and the notes approved the land therein will become subject to homestead or preemption entry only, until after it shall be offered at public sale to the highest bidder, by direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the provisions of section 5 of the Act of Congress approved August 3d 1846. If you wish to take the necessary steps to have the island surveyed and brought into market, please advise me and I will send you the necessary blanks upon which to make the application, after the thirty days notice has been given (Letters Sent vol. N 404).

On July 15th, 1876 Baker sends in his estimates for the fiscal year starting July 1, 1877 and ending June 30, 1878. He writes,

The reports of proceedings in Congress upon the appropriation bills for the current year, seem to indicate beyond a doubt, that the appropriations for public surveys will be reduced far below the estimates and recommendations of your predecessor. I have therefore repeated some of my estimates made one year ago, with such additions as I think will best subserve the interests of the government and actual settlers in this State.

I consider it very important that all the Meridian and standard lines should be run, in order that we may have a definite starting point within a reasonable distance, for the surveys in any portion of the States, where the tide of immigration may warrant them; and at the same time avoid excessive fractional sections which are sure to occur where surveys are commenced at points remote from, or in advance of those lines. I also deem it for the best interests of the surveying service, that so far as practicable, exterior township lines should be run one year in advance of subdivisions and by different deputies. Recognizing the necessity of strict economy and reduced expenditures in all departments of the government, I have made these estimates at the lowest figures compatible with the best interests of the government and the people of this State (Letters Sent vol N 451-452).

Baker was appraised of the Congressional appropriations for the following fiscal year by the Commissioner on August 23rd.

By an Act making appropriations for sundry civil expense of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30th eighteen hundred and seventy seven and for other purposes, approved July 31st 1876 there was appropriated 1st. “For the survey of the public lands and private land claims, three hundred thousand dollars: Provided, that the sum hereby appropriated shall be expended in such surveys as the public interest may require, under the direction of the General Land Office, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and as such rates as the Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe, not exceeding the rate herein authorized; Provided that no lands shall be surveyed under this appropriation, except, first those adapted to agriculture without artificial irrigation; second, irrigable lands or such as can be redeemed and for which there is sufficient accessible water for reclamation and cultivation of the same not otherwise utilized or claimed; third, timberlands bearing timber of commercial value; fourth, coal-lands containing coal of commercial value; fifth, exterior boundary of townsites; sixth, private land claims.

The cost of such surveys shall not exceed ten dollars per mile, for standard lines, and the starting point for said surveys may be established by triangulation, seven dollars for townships, and six dollars for section lines, except that the Commissioner of the General Land Office may allow for the survey of standard lines in heavily timbered land a sum not exceeding thirteen dollars per mile.”

“And Provided further, That before any land granted to any railroad company by the United States shall be conveyed to such company, or any persons entitled thereto under any of the Acts incorporating or relating to said company, unless such company is exempted by law from the payment of such costs, there shall first be paid into the Treasury of the United States the cost of surveying, selecting and conveying the same to the said company of persons in interest”.

2nd. For rent of Office of Surveyor General of Minnesota, fuel, books, stationery, and other necessaries fifteen hundred dollars.” In conformity with law the Secretary of the Interior under date of the 22nd. instant, out of said three hundred thousand dollars appropriated the sum of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars for the surveys in your surveying district at the rates prescribed by law, which must not be exceeded in letting contracts for the field work specifically authorized under six heads herein-before enumerated, and you are hereby directed not to expend any portion of the apportionment in the survey of any other quality of lands than such as are prescribed by the foregoing provisions of the appropriation act.

In order to secure a strict compliance with the law, you are instructed to give priority of survey to lands already settled upon, and to require your deputies to execute their work in person of under their immediate personal supervision in the filed, and in accordance with the printed Manual of Surveying Instructions, and your special instructions which must not conflict with the Manual or the existing laws.

You will caution your deputies, who must be practical surveyors and familiar with the government surveys, not to commence their surveys before the approval of their contracts by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

With the view of reaching distant settlements awaiting the extension of the lines of the public surveys, and to bring such localities within the range of the regular system of the public surveys, provision of law has been made for the determination of the starting point of surveys by triangulation, instead of starting from standard parallels or the auxiliary bases prolonged over sterile and unsurveyable lands. It will therefore be in your power to contract for the survey of such tracts, in case exigencies occur which seem to require it. The cost of such triangulating in such cases not being provided for by law will not constitute a proper charge in the accounts of your deputies against the government.

Where the country intervening between the public surveys and the unsurveyed settlements is of an arable or surveyable character, the proper base should be extended in the usual manner, for which the deputy would be paid at the legal rate.

In case of surveys under the deposit system you will estimate sufficient rates per mile, with adequate sums to cover the expense of the Office work, as the deposit system is not affected by the provision of law authorizing the surveys under the six different classes of land aforesaid.

In letting contracts for the subdivision of the public lands you are required to stipulate the conditions that the survey must include all the lands in the township contracted for subdivision, which are by law classed as surveyable; and except in case of triangulation, that the deputy shall start from the proper bases or standard parallels. If these last shall not have been established, that must first be done and then, if there are no exterior lines of the township surveyed, the deputy must first survey them, and finally subdivide the township into sections running, measuring and marking the lines from South to North, in the regular progress, avoiding the practice, in some surveying district, of surveying partly from north to south and partly from south to north, leaving the interior of the township partly unsectionalized, ostensibly for specious reasons assigned that the rough and mountainous features of the country precluded the possibility of extending the lines over the same. Subsequently the unsurveyed portion of such townships is frequently settled upon, and, under the deposit system the survey of the township without difficulty except that the last surveyor finds it impossible in such cases to connect his work with the corners of previous surveys by due north and south and east and west lines as the law requires.

In order to obviate similar irregularities in your district you must enjoin your deputies to strictly adhere to the system of public surveys and comply with the printed Manual of Surveying Instructions and the existing law, as illustrated on diagrams A,B, and C of the Manual, and the requirements of instructions from this office dated April 14 1875 in reference to the establishment of stone corners by witnessing them to pits.

The modification introduced in the supplemental printed instructions of June 1 1864, requiring navigable rivers to be meandered on one bank only is hereby rescinded, and you will therefore cause both banks of such streams to be meandered in future, conformably with the printed Manual of Surveying Instructions of February 22 1855 at page 15, legalized by Act of Congress approved May 30 1862.

In cases where townships have formerly been partly surveyed and it becomes necessary to complete the same, you are directed to instruct your deputies to fully describe the old corners identified by them in the field, and from which they will start in the completion of their surveys, and to state in their field notes, the kinds of corners, bearing trees or other witnesses to the same, so that there will be no doubt as to the proper corner from which additional surveys are initiated.

The particular localities in your surveying district requiring earliest surveys are left to your election, but you will exercise your best judgment in the selection thereof, so as to subserve the interests of actual and bona fide settlers on public lands who may apply to you for the extension of the lines of the public survey.

At the same time you will not omit other meritorious claims and you will bear in mind that you must confine the surveying liabilities within the sum apportioned and appropriated for the present fiscal year.

The Error in Section 2403 of the revised Statutes in reference to the deposits for surveys, was corrected by an Act of Congress approved on the 27th of April last.

3d. By an Act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the government for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven and for other purposes approved August 15 1876 there was appropriated “For compensation of Surveyor General of Minnesota $2,000 and for the clerks in his office $3,000” which must not be exceeded under any circumstances.

For the information of this office you are required whenever special instructions are issued by you at the time of contracting for work, to forward a copy of the same with the contract; and when instructions are issued during the performance of the work in the field, a copy of the instructions must accompany the returns of survey.

As the form of contract now includes the preliminary oath of the deputy, it is necessary to repeat each oath at the commencement of the field notes of survey.

Where one final affidavit is made to cover the returns of several townships, you are required to have stitched together the notes of all of the townships included in such affidavit (Letters Received, LXIII 134-142).

In his annual report for 1876 dated August 26 Baker reports, “All the surveys under contract at the date of the last report, and all surveys chargeable to the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876, have been completed” (US Congress House, 1876 198). He notes that the surveys of the reservations authorized by Congress on April 8, 1864 (13 Stat. 41) and provided for in the Appropriations Act of June 23, 1874 and March 5, 1875 had been let. He had let several contracts to subdivide townships after his annual report of 1875, thus he reported them in 1876. The contracts for all three included both township lines and subdivisions. In addition he had contracted with Samuel E. Stebbins (September 15, 1875) to run the eighth correction line, Nelson D. Miller (October 8, 1875) to resurvey the boundaries of the Fort Ripley military reservation west of the Mississippi as established by executive order of September 15, 1849, and John Ohlssen (October 21, 1875) to survey the meanders of an island.

Special instructions were still issued to the deputies but, for the most part, they were mere admonitions to the individuals on the field procedures as required in the above letter from the Commissioner. Baker writes to Henry S. Howe, on September 11th,

The work must be executed in person or under your immediate personal supervision in the field.

You will not commence the survey until notified that your contract has been approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

You will include in your survey all the lands in the townships contracted for which are by law surveyable. You will commence your surveys from the 12th Standard Parallel, and in surveying each township, you will first survey all the exterior lines of such township before commencing the subdivision.

In subdividing the townships, you will commence at the corner of Sections 35 & 36 on the township line, and run your lines from South to North in the regular progress. You will strictly adhere to the established system of public surveys, and comply with the printed Manual of Surveying Instructions, and the existing laws, as illustrated on diagrams A,B, & C of the Manual.

You will meander both banks of all navigable streams in the township that you survey. (Letter Sent vol. N 485)

A similar letter was sent to the others who were given contracts at that time.

1877

There a few letter from individuals who wanted employment, presumably because there were few opportunities still remaining. One such letter, addressed to the surveyor general of Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota, came from an individual who wished to resurvey a township in Michigan - a reminder of the administrative history of the Minnesota surveying district. In the same vein is a letter asking for a copy of a contract made by Lucius Lyon, surveyor general at Detroit in 1850, for surveying in the lower peninsular of Michigan when the Minnesota surveys were administered from Dubuque

On February 9th Baker writes to the Commissioner, commenting on the reduction in the rate of pay for deputies,

(W)hile I fully recognize the necessity of practicing that most rigid economy in all departments of the public service, I respectfully submit that the government cannot expect surveys to be made for less than the actual cost of marking them. There is very little territory left in this State that can be surveyed at the prices named .... The unsurveyed portion of this State is far removed from the base of supplies and all materials have to be packed a long distance on the backs of men, necessarily involving a heavy expense. After a careful consideration of the subject in all its bearings, and consultation with experienced surveyors, I am convinced that the following scale of prices is as low as good and faithful work can be afforded. Standard lines $12 for prairies and $15 for timber; Town lines $10 for prairie and $12 for timber; Section lines $6 for prairie and $8 for timber (Letters Sent vol. O 11).

In a form letter dated March 10th the Commissioner acknowledges receiving a surveying account for Eli W. Griffin. His letter also points out some deficiencies in the returns.

I desire to call your attention to the defects in Deputy Griffin’s field notes:

The corners are not sufficiently described - It is not sufficient to say “Set post in mound as per instructions for cor. To secs 16, 17, 20 & 21” or 1/4 sec. as the case may be.

The corners must be accurately described - giving the dimensions of the posts, descriptions of notches, number of inches in the ground, height of mound and number and dimensions of posts as described by instructions of April 3, 1873 (Letters Received LXIV 24).

Once again Baker answers the question of how to deal with surveying errors. On March 30th he writes to P.M.Quist of Wilmar regarding the line between section 9 and 10 in T 118 R 34 N,

The original notes ... read - “North true, at 40.00 chains true place for 1/4 sec. Corner, 47.00 leave cane marsh and set witness 1/4 sec. Post, made mound of earth with charred stake” & c. The true corner should be equidistant between the corner to sec’s 9, 10, 15 & 16 and the corner to Sec’s 3,4,9, &10. Under the ruling of the department this office has no authority to make a re-survey or to correct errors after the original survey has been approved. The remedy must be obtained under the State laws, through the county officers; but if all the parties in interest are agreed there would seem to be no hindrance to the proper establishment of the 1/4 corner as indicated by the field notes, equi-distant between the section corners above referred to (Letters Sent vol. O 22).

In a May 28th letter sending his estimates to the Commissioner, Baker comments on the status of the surveys along the U.S./Canada boundary. He writes,

The interests of the public surveys in this District require that at least a tier of townships, or more, be surveyed on and along the International Line, as rapidly as the appropriations will warrant, continuing the work begun the past year which terminated with Tp.65 N. R.3 W. By reference to the maps furnished by your office by you, under date of May 24, 1876, of the official demarcation of the International Boundary, it will be noted that in the large lakes whose channels are intended to constitute the line, there are numerous islands, some of which are numbered. Observe, for instance, Lake Kasieganagah in about range six W. of the 4th. P.M.; there are islands numbered from 1 to 29 and the precise object of this numeration is not defined either on the map or in the treaty. The numeration may define the channel, or it may be that such islands are intended to be all included within the boundary of the United States, and all not so numbered excluded. Are there not copies of field notes of the International survey on file in your office or in the State Department? (Letters Sent, vol O 30).

He received notice of the appropriations for his office June 29th.

By act of Congress approved March 3, 1877, the sum of $300,000 was appropriated for the survey of the public lands and private land claims for the year ending June 30, 1878.

Of this amount $12,400 has been assigned for the survey of the public lands in your district. The classes of land authorized by law to be surveyed and the rates per mile to be paid are the same of those mentioned in the letter of instructions to you dated August 23, 1876, except that for the survey of heavily timbered and mountainous lands $16 per mile is allowed for standard lines, $14 for township and $10 for section lines.

By direction of the Secretary of the Interior I have to inform you that if you should let contracts for the survey of lands not authorized by the appropriation act, which enumerates the different classes of land to be surveyed you will be held to strict account for so doing; therefore to avoid a misapplication of the funds allotted to your district for the surveying service, you are required to be vigilant in selecting the lands to be surveyed, and to take only such as are known to you, either of your own knowledge or from that derived through actual settlers, to be of the classes specified.

You will impress upon the minds of your deputies the requirements of the law, and caution them to comply with the injunction on peril of losing the fruits of their labor.

In this connection, I have to inform you that the sum of $10,000 was set aside by the Department, out of the aforesaid $300,000, for the examination of surveys in the field in the different surveying districts.

It is not intended to assign any particular sum to any district for this service, but the fund will be applied by this office as exigencies may require.

In case any returns of surveys approved by you and transmitted here for payment, shall be found indicative of irregularities and noncompliance with contracts and the requirements of law and instructions, the necessary part of the funds thus set aside will be applied to cover the expense of the examination by such agents as this office shall deem proper to appoint for the purpose, and in the meantime the surveying account will not be paid unless the results of the examination shall be favorable to the deputy surveyor.

Such being the policy of the Department with the view of guarding, in future, against unlawful surveys, you are hereby required to instruct your deputies to whom you let contracts for public surveys, that unless their work shall be found executed in accordance with the terms of their contract, and with the law and instructions, not only in regard to the correctness of the survey but also with regard to the character of the lands authorized to be surveyed, no account of such deputies will be paid.

The instructions to you dated Aug. 23, 1876, must be regarded as still in force, except where they conflict with the foregoing (Letters Received LXIV 56-59).

In his annual report for 1877, written on August 31st, Baker justifies his office and expenditures, “The miscellaneous business of this office necessarily involves a large amount of work of which no detailed statement can be given” (U.S., Congress, House, 1877 232). He echoes a refrain not heard for some time, “Owing to the limited appropriation for clerk hire, but little work has been done during the last year toward bringing forward the arrears of this office” (U.S., Congress, House, 1877 232). He has some recommendations regarding the basic lines of the survey.

I desire to repeat the recommendations made in my estimated forwarded July 14, relative to the running of certain meridians and standard or correction lines. The proper connection of surveys in different parts of the State seems to demand the establishment of those lines (U.S., Congress, House, 1877 232).

He comments on the progress of the survey and the problem of timber trespass.

The surveys in this district have now reached the headwaters of the Mississippi River, and most of the unsurveyed timber region is tributary to streams running north. I learn from parties residing along the northern border, that a large amount of wood and timber is annually taken from the public lands for the use of steamboats and for milling purposes across the line. I would therefore respectfully recommend that surveys be carried on along the international line as far west as the Little Fork River, with a view of bringing these lands into market. These lands are principally valuable for timber, and I would respectfully suggest that Congress be requested to so modify the law for the disposal of timber lands, that they may be subject to private sale or entry immediately after survey, at an appraised valuation, or under such regulations and restrictions as Congress and the Department may deem proper. The government would thus receive the price of the lands, and be saved all expense of preventing waste or trespass; while the lands being in the hands of a large number of individuals, the burden of protection from theft or fire would be upon them, and by concert of action could be accomplished at small expense to each. (U.S., Congress, House, 1877 232).

He recommends the course of the following year’s survey.

The country north of Lake Superior is attracting much attention on account of its mineral resources, and I am confident the extension of the surveys in that direction would bring the government quick and ample returns. (U.S., Congress, House, 1877 232)

He warns, however, “In view of the character of the unsurveyed portion of Minnesota, and the distance which men and supplies have to be transported, involving a large expense of time and money, I deem the rates set forth in my estimate of July 14, to be as low as good and faithful work can be afforded” (U.S., Congress, House, 1877 232).

In making a contract with Henry and Frank Howe, Baker had obviously allowed the enhanced rate that he had proposed in his letter of February 19th rather than the rates specified in the federal appropriations. He receives a letter of rebuke from the Commissioner.

You state that the lands embraced in this contract are “mixed timber and prairie” and have allowed augmented rates for the same. Under the law augmented rates can be paid only for the survey of heavily timbered and mountainous lands. You are therefore required to issue to the Deputies supplemental special instructions - which under the law will form a part of the contract - providing for the payment of the augmented rates named in the contract for the survey of such lines only as may be found to extend over heavily timbered land and for the payment of the usual rates of $10 for standard, $7 for township and $6 for sections lines where the lands are not heavily timbered. The contract when so modified may be considered approved - You will forward a copy of the supplemental instructions to this office.

In rendering the accounts the lines surveyed at the usual and augmented rates should be separately stated (Letters Received LXIV 72-73).

As a consequence Baker writes to the two deputies,

I am directed by the Hon. Commissioner of the General Land Office to issue to you additional special instructions, which, under the law, will form part of your contract with this office, dated July 10th 1877.

By the law making appropriations for public surveys for the current year, the rates are established at $10.00 for standard, $7.00 for township, and $6.00 for section lines, per mile, except in heavily timbered and mountainous lands. You will therefore be required to designate fully in your field notes, the character of each mile you survey; whether prairie, sparsely or heavily timbered, and the kind and quality of the timber.

In making up your account for payment you will be allowed the augmented rates, named in your contract, for such lines as are shown to be heavily timbered and the minimum rates above mentioned for all other lines (Letters Sent vol. O 43).

On September 5th he writes to the Commissioner, apparently after receiving a letter from the Howes,

(U)pon examination of the townships embraced in their contract about one half will come under the heading of “heavily timbered”, and the balance, of the class covered by the minimum rates allowed by law. I therefore enclose additional special instructions, adding another township to their contract ... (Letters Sent vol O 63).

1878

On March 5th Baker received a letter from the Commissioner of the GLO in which the Commissioner states,

I am in receipt of your letter of the 26th ulto. In relation to the rate allowed for the survey of meander lines, and in reply have to say that this office has invariably ruled that meander lines shall be paid for at the same rate as section lines, being the lowest rate prescribed by law. Where provision has been made for augmented section rates in heavily timbered or mountainous land, it has been ruled that meander lines shall not be subject to the same augmentation except in cases where it is shown by the field notes that it was extremely difficult to meander streams and lakes because of the mountainous nature of the country, of dense timber and underbrush growing upon their banks at the meander line (Letter Received, LXV 14-15).

Once again he answers the question of how to deal with an obvious survey error. He writes to James Jenks, Co. surveyor in Wright county June 27, 1878,

(T)he section posts cannot be changed in order to make a survey correct which was not originally so. The fact that the post marked “A” in your diagram does not lie in a direct north and south line, as it should, is not sufficient grounds for changing it to the point marked “B” after it has long stood and been known to be at “A”. And in as much as the bearings of the trees and their distances do not warrant the location of the corner at either point, but at some entirely new one measured for and ascertained, it follows that the field notes are not serviceable in the adjustment of the dispute. The post marked “A” in consequence of it being the place of the established section corner from the evidence on the ground (if such is the evidence) must remain unmoved (Letters Sent vol. O 107).

Baker received a letter regarding his appropriation for fiscal year ending June 30 1879 on July 15, 1878. In the letter the Commissioner reiterates the standard rates for the various lines and informs Baker that he has $15,000 out of the total appropriations of $300,000 for all surveys of the public lands. He also writes,

Said amount must not be exceeded by you in letting contracts for the survey of lands specifically authorized by law and enumerated in the circular dated July 15, 1878, herewith enclosed.

In this connection I have to inform you hat the sum of $30,000 was set aside by the Department out of the aforesaid $300,000 for the examination of surveys in the field in the different surveying districts. The sum thus set aside will be applied by this office to the examination of work in the field as occasion may require in the several districts (Letter Received, LXV 42-43).

Appended to this letter is a circular describing what type of lands were to be surveyed and the procedures to be followed. This circular, very similar to the one appended to the letter informing Baker of his appropriations in the previous years, is best regarded as supplement to the Printed Manual of Instructions and is the source of the special instructions issued by the surveyor general to the deputies.

In what would be his last annual report, on August 31st. Baker writes,

The tide of immigration flowing into the northern and western portion of our State during the last year is unprecedented. The immense yield of our cereals in 1877(except the limited district ravaged by grasshoppers) attracted many thousands of the poor and industrious classes of the older and more populous States, and foreign countries, to our rich and productive soil. The reports of the several districts land offices in this State, will show the extent of the immigration in the vast increase in (and?) the amount of public lands disposed of, particularly under the homestead, pre-emption, and timber-culture laws (U.S., Congress, House, 1878 236)

The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad Company is now extending its line down the Red River of the North, and will have it completed to Saint Vincent this fall, thus opening up a large and fertile section of our State heretofore deemed almost accessible for agriculture, owing to the great expense attending the transportation of the crops to market. Much attention is now directed to that section, and I predict a large immigration into the Red River Valley next season.(U.S., Congress, House, 1878 236)

The Saint Paul and Duluth Railroad Company is constructing a branch line of their road from Thomson to the head of Knife Falls, on the St. Louis River, which will make available the large tracts of pine timber on that river and its tributaries. In this connection I desire to repeat the suggestion in my last annual report, that Congress be requested to modify the law for the disposal of timberlands. It is well known that pine lands are of no practical value except for the timber, and it is hardly possible that the requirements of the homestead or pre-emption laws can be complied with in the entry of them (U.S., Congress House, 1878 236)

By restricting the sale of these lands for a number of years, upon the theory of holding them for “actual settlers,” when our whole experience shows that “settlements” are seldom, if ever, made thereon, the timber is taken and removed by those who would willingly purchase and pay for the land if the law would permit them to do so, and when the lands are finally “offered” there are no purchasers, because all that made them valuable has been removed (U.S., Congress House, 1878 236)

On September 6, 1878 Baker writes about his trip to the north shore of Lake Superior to the Commissioner,

The Canadian Pacific RR is being rapidly extended this season from Fort William, at the western extremity of Thunder Bay, towards the Lake of the Woods and in a general line parallel with the International Line. The Dawson route, established by the Canadian government over the “water stretches” composed in part of the International Line, has not been abandoned. The work on the St. Francis canal, at this writing, is proceeding with vigor, two hundred and sixty-five men being now engaged in its prosecution. This will open up two hundred miles of navigation, which will bring into market the immense pine forests which skirt the shores of the streams flowing north, from the American side, into Rainy Lake and River. I find also, that the demand of the Canadian Pacific RR for lumber, will be immense. The contract now let, on section 15, near Rat Portage, (Canada side) a distance of 35 miles, the engineers estimate will require 11,500,000 feet of timber, besides ties. This can only be furnished from the American side, as there is in that vicinity, but little timber of value on the Canadian side. Section 16 of the same road, 70 miles long, to be let this fall, will require as much more. On section 15, the grade has to be raised nearly the whole distance, on solid rock, and it is proposed to do it all with timber. Most of it must come from the East Fork American river, and that vicinity. It is my purpose, the ensuing year, with your approval, to push the surveys in that direction, to cover this developing interest. In the meantime ties and timber will be sought there in great quantities. Capt. James Nichols of this State, a man of integrity and capacity will spend the winter near Fort Francis in the Canadian employment. I earnest recommend that he be employed by you to look after our timber interests, and that you give him full and explicit instructions for his guidance in the matter. He has just left for Fort Francis, but a letter sent to this office for him, will reach him. The matter deserves early attention. These facts give emphasis to the statement in my annual report..... These lands should be surveyed at the earliest possible moment, and Congress asked to release them from the operation of the pre-emption and homestead laws, and make them subject to private entry, or they will be lost to the government, as they are only valuable for the timber (Letters Sent vol. O 63-64).

Clearly the cost of the surveys was a concern for the Secretary of the Interior, Carl Schurz, under whose authority the Commissioner of the General Land Office operated. In a circular dated October 11, 1878 he writes,

Owing to the limited appropriations for the contingent expenses of the Department, telegrams from subordinate officers of the Department to the Secretary of the Interior must be prepaid. In this connexion it is suggested that greater care should be taken to reduce the words of the telegram to the least possible number (Letter Received LXV 64)

The inspection of surveys continues. On November 20, 1878 Baker writes

In accordance with the provisions of law (Sec. 2223 Par. 5, Revised Statutes) and by personal direction of the Hon. Commissioner of the General Land Office, I have personally made an inspection of certain surveys north of Lake Superior, and also of the surveying operations now in progress, (August) along the International Line, as hereinafter mentioned. The work inspected embraces part of the contract of Kindred & Thurston, dated Sept. 23d, 1876, and the work now being done under contract of Stuntz & Hamilton dated July 5th 1877. The difficulties to be encountered in reaching and traversing the area of these surveys, have been great, and necessarily made the work of inspection and examination longer than I anticipated. The land is rough and semi-mountainous, and embraces a lacustrine system of an extraordinary character, occupying fully one third of the area. The timber is chiefly pine, and generally excellent in quality. Some fine bodies of pine timber of the last years surveys have bee taken by the State University, under the Act authorizing them to make selections. A few settlers had gone upon some of these lands in advance of the surveyors, and were waiting for them. The indications are that quite a number will follow the course of the surveys. The inducements are the timber and the minerals, the latter of which is chiefly comprised in quartz bearing silver veins, which traverse this whole trappean region. These have nit yet been sufficiently examined to justify me in certifying to their actual value. But multitudes of quartz veins traverse the whole area of the surveys in that region of the years 1876-7. Should these veins prove as rich as settlers upon them anticipate, they will impart very considerable value to the timber of that region. There are also iron deposits of vast extent, and regarded as of great value, lying immediately south of the quartz veins above mentioned. These have already attracted much attention, and parties are awaiting the completion of the surveys to enter the lands. That this extraordinary country should have been so long overlooked, seem strange. But that probably results from the fact that it was deemed more inaccessible than it really is. I paid much attention to properly defining that portion of the International Line which is embraced in these surveys. Enclosed, marked “A” is a letter which I prepared for publication, which enters into a detailed description, both historical and topographical, of this portion of the International Line; which letter, I desire to make a part of this report.

A great destruction of timber in this region is constantly occurring by fires, since the advent of settlers and explorers. There is a carpet of deep moss over the mountains, through which, in the dry season, the fires creep in such an insidious way, that it seems impossible to prevent them. In some places fires have been set by parties desirous of uncovering the face of the rock , to find the mineral veins, and so a vast quantity of valuable timber has been destroyed. I used my utmost efforts to prevent the setting of fires, and am sure that much timber has been saved in this way, though many of these fires are unavoidable in the dry season. On one or two occasions our camp fires, creeping through the moss, were caught up be high winds, and we had to fly for our lives. One of the incidents of these fierce fires is the obliteration of corner posts and bearing trees. On more than one occasion we found that the abandoned camp fires of the surveying party whose work we were examining, was burning on the track of the surveyors, and almost destroyed the work done but a few days before. I gave particular attention to the surveys along the International Line, noting all the meander posts from Mountain Lake in township 65 N. of range 1 E., to Saginaga Lake, in township 66 N. of range 5 W. where I left the work there in progress. I found good meander corners, well established. The map furnished by your office (being a copy of one on file in the State Department) which was intended to exhibit the course of a certain line described by the Commissioners for a proposed boundary line between the United States and Canada, does not exhibit said line through Saginaga Lake. This large lake has in it about one hundred islands. The line, it is stated, runs through the natural channel of said lake. The line not being noted through this lake on the map, I undertook in person, to define this natural channel and notified the deputies what course to follow. The natural channel is so obvious that the result will be admitted by all to be the only true lines. This work consumed much of my time, but it was necessary to be done. The same course will have to be pursued in Lac La Croix when the surveys reach that lake. I followed the town and section lines as here set forth, and found the lines well run and defined, and the courses properly established .... (Letters Sent vol. O 76-78).

1879

The contract between the surveyor general and individual deputies as well as the appointment of surveyors general and the register and receivers of the land district offices was an important source of patronage. On April 16, 1879 the new surveyor general, James H Stewart, writes to the Commissioner,

I have the honor respectfully to request that the contracts made by my predecessor, Genl. Baker, with H.S. & T.D.Howe, dated March 31, 1879 for the survey of certain Townships therein named and forwarded from this office Ap. 1st for your approval, may not be approved.

I make this request for the reason that said contract was not let until after my appointment as Surveyor General, a fact known to Genl. Baker, and as these surveys must necessarily be made under my direction, & will require my approval, I deem it my right and privilege to name the parties who shall do the work and to select the place where the surveys shall be made (Letters Sent, vol. O 167).

Thus ended the public land survey career of James H. Baker. His career was not marked by any particular event or crisis, not were vast areas of the state surveyed. He merely continued to administer the survey according to the dictates of his superior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and his own judgment, expending the appropriations granted by Congress to monument township and section lines in northern Minnesota.

Bibliography

Letters Sent, volume N (1876), volume O (1877-1879).

Letters Received, volume LXIII (1876), volume LXIV (1877), volume LXV (1878).

United States, Congress, House, “Report of the surveyor general of Minnesota”, H.exec.doc. 1 (1876) Serial 1749 198-202.

United States, Congress, House, “Report of the surveyor general of Minnesota”, H.exec.doc. 1 (1877) Serial 1800 232-237.

United States, Congress, House, “Report of the surveyor general of Minnesota”, H.exec.doc. 1 (1878) Serial 1850 236-239.

The Public Land Survey under Jacob H. Stewart, 1879-1882

Introduction

On April 3, 1879 Jacob H. Stewart replaced James H. Baker as surveyor general of Minnesota.
For the next four years, until April 3, 1882, he administered contracts with deputies in northeastern Minnesota along the international boundary between the United States and Canada and on the Vermilion and Mesabi Iron Ranges reporting annually, as required, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office (Figure 1). In his annual reports he notes that the surveys were prosecuted with care despite the inclement weather and the difficult nature of the land being surveyed in northern Minnesota. He, like other surveyor generals before him, had a considerable optimism about the future for agriculture in the areas he recommended for survey, an optimism that, in this case, was misplaced. Unlike many of his predecessors, Stewart’s reports are quite brief, containing only the information that was required, perhaps a reflection of the limited number of contracts he awarded and the absence of any real problems in surveying at that time. During the four years the number of surveys was limited because individual contracts were relatively expensive and Congress appropriated only small amounts of money, partly because of the remoteness of the country to be surveyed, partly because there was considerable sentiment to changing the way in which the survey was administered. In 1877, both the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior had recommended to Congress that the various surveyors general office throughout the nation be closed and replaced by one surveyor general in Washington. They also recommended that the contract system for carrying out the survey be abolished and replaced by deputies employed by the General Land Office (White, 1983 p 156).

1879

This year was marked by two important pieces of legislation that would have an impact, not only on the public land survey, but on the whole process of land alienation - the way in which the federal government disposed of the public lands. In one statute Congress established a Public Land Commission to codify existing legislation that controlled the General Land Office activities, to develop a system for classifying the public lands, and to make recommendations for the future of those lands (20 Stat.394). During legislative debate there some sentiment was expressed for abolishing the offices of the surveyors general (Gates, 1968 422). On the same day, in the Civil Appropriation Act of March 3, 1879, Congress established the US Geological Survey (20 Stat. 377). “Among other duties, the USGS was made responsible for the classification of the public lands and examination of the geological structure, mineral lands, and other resources; eventually it would execute some of the rectangular surveys of the public lands” (White, 1983 p.159).

Stewart made the first of four annual reports on August 29, 1879, noting that the contracts made out of the appropriations of $15,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879 had been completed, the surveys had been approved, plats transmitted to land district offices, and, along with the field notes, to Washington. There was still one contract under the 18778-1879 appropriations not yet completed and a contract under the appropriations for 1879-1880 still incomplete. He explains, at length, his reasons for recommending where surveys should be made in the fiscal year 1880-1881. His enthusiastic endorsement of northern Minnesota as a future agricultural region echoes the theme of timber depredation of previous surveyors general

The survey contemplated in the estimate are the extension of the meridian and correction lines over the country lying north of the present surveyed portion of the State, and as far west as the third guide meridian forming the eastern boundary of range 25 west of the fifth principal meridian, and the survey of the townships lying contiguous to the Rainy Lake and Rainy Lake River, and also such pine lands lying on or near the streams flowing north into said lake and river .... The country, which has heretofore been almost inaccessible from want of communication with other parts of the country, is now being made easily accessible by improvements which are now being prosecuted by the Canadian Government.

The Canadian Pacific Railroad will soon be completed from Winnipeg to Rat Portage, at the outlet of Lake of the Woods. Good and interrupted steamboat navigation exists from Rat Portage to Fort Saint Francis, at or near the outlet of Rainy Lake, over which the products of a large section of the country contiguous to Rainy Lake will find access to a ready market. As a result of these improvements the lands on the Canadian side of Rainy Lake River, extending from Rainy Lake to the Lake of the Woods, which have for several years been surveyed by the Canadian Government, are now being rapidly taken and occupied by settlers. All accounts agree that there is a much braoder belt of agricultural lands, and more desirable for settlement, extending along the southern shore of Rainy Lake, and on this side of Rainy Lake River, than there is on the Canadian side of the line; and from the fresuent inquiries which have been made to this office concerning these lands from persons desirous of settling upon them, I am satisfied that if surveyed they would soon be occupied by actual and permanent settlers. All reports agree that large tracts of valuable timber, consisting of pine and hardwood, exist on the large streams flowing north to the international boundary. More or less depredations are annually being committed upon these timbered lands by persons settled along the boundary, which, from the unsettles nature of the country and its great distance from the settled portions of our own State, it is very difficult if not impossible to prevent. The survey of this region of country, thus opening it up for settlement, will remove in a great degree the difficulty of preventing depredations on the government lands, while at the same time the timbered lands, which are now annually being despoiled of their value or wasted by fires, would be sold and the government receive the value thereof (United States, Congress, House 1879 786).

He exercises a prerogative that all surveyors general possessed, although rarely exercised, and suggested that the Commissioner of the General Land Office recommend Congress alter the existing land laws regarding timberlands in Minnesota. In the previous year Congress had enacted legislation that would have great impact on the ownership of forest lands in Oregon, Nevada, California, and Washington Territory. Under the Timber and Stone Act individuals could acquire forest lands for $2.50/acre, lands that were valuable solely for their timber growth and not their agricultural possibilities once cleared (20 Stat.89). This act, the first in which Congress acknowledged that not all public land was useful for agriculture, would have considerable impact on forest land ownership in northern Minnesota when its provisions were extended there in 1891 (Curry-Roper,198 ). At this time, however, the public woodlands of Minnesota were still perceived as agricultural lands on which trees grew, land that could not be used for agriculture until the trees were removed. The trees possessed little value to any prospective farmer and were merely considered an impediment to growing crops. Trees were not considered as a separate interest from the land surface. In 1879 Individuals could acquire title to land mainly under two statutes, both requiring settlement on the land and thus an agricultural use. The so-called Log Cabin Bill of 1841, otherwise known as the pre-emption act, an act that had been amended several times, allowed anyone who settled on land first opportunity at acquiring title when it was surveyed and offered for sale at public auction (10 Stat. 576). The Homestead Act allowed settlers to acquire title to 160 acres of land without cost provided they lived on the land for a period of five years (12 Stat. 392). Stewart writes about the situation,

A large proportion of the pine lands are of no value except for their timber, and therefore should not be left subject to entry only under the pre-emption and homestead laws, as it is hardly possible that the requirements of those laws can be complied with in the entry of them. The result of the present system of disposing of these lands, it i believed, has been that many of the entries made under the pre-emption and homestead laws of the pine lands, have been made by false statements, no valid settlement having been made; and the difficulty of complying with these laws has led to the location of the most valuable tracts of pine land with scrip, much of which, as is well known, is fraudulent. The difficulty of obtaining title to the pine lands, under the pre-emption and homestead laws or by scrip locations, leaves a large class of these lands unentered and exposed to the depredations of trespassers or to the still greater ravages of the fires which frequently sweep over the country; whereas, if they could be entered with cash at a fair valuation, it is believed they would be speedily taken, and thus relieve the government of the great expense attending the detection and prosecution of trespassers (United States, Congress, House 1879 p.786).

1880

Stewart notes where the surveys had been made, where he proposed they go next, and some problems faced by his office.

The surveys made during the last fiscal year were mostly in the northern portion of the State, extending along the international boundary from the western edge of Knife Lake to Loon Lake, a distance of about 75 miles on the boundary line. Most of the townships subdivided border on lakes, and also include within their limits a large number of lakes of a size to be meandered; the aggregate of meander lines run being 761 miles. The cost of surveying such townships, and the time and labor consumed in the office in the preparation of plats and making transcripts of the field notes is very great (United States, Congress, House 1880 p.974).

The estimate for the surveying service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, is based upon the large and increasing demand for the timber lands existing in the northern part of the State, and for lands lying contiguous to the Rainy Lake and Rainy Lake River. The surveys should be extended over this region as early as possible, that the country in the vicinity of rainy Lake may be opened for settlement, and that the valuable timber lands may be disposed of before they are despoiled of their value by trespassers or destroyed by fire (United States, Congress, House 1880 p.974).

He notes that his office had made duplicates of 25 township plats for local land district offices to replace those that had been lost and destroyed. This is the first mention of a duplicate plat for specific townships. In this case, then, there were three copies made instead of the usual two.

1881

In 1881 a new edition of the 1855 survey manual was published. Titled Instructions of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Surveyors General of the United States Relative to the Survey of the Public Lands and Private Land Claims, the manual was different from the earlier one in several important ways. It contained sections relating to “accuracy” (McEntyre, 1978 119), instructions regarding the retracement of lines and the reestablishment of lost corners (McEntyre, 1978 pp.258-261, 272-275) and also introduced the idea of “auxiliary meridians” into the framework of the public land survey and the 24-mile square (McEntyre, 1978 p.111).

In his annual report Stewart he writes,

In consequence of the severity of the past winter, and the unusual depth of snow which prevailed, Deputy Surveyor George F. Hamilton was greatly retarded in his work; so much so that it became necessary to grant an extension of time on his contract. His surveys are reported to be finished, but his field notes have not all been returned to this office. The country surveyed is covered by a thick growth of timber and dense undergrowth, which makes the execution of the surveys exceedingly slow and laborious and very expensive; in some instances the actual cost of the survey being more than the amount paid for the work (United States, Congress, House 1881 p.674).

Complaining about the amount of meandering necessary, he appointed J.R.King to examine some survey’s completed by George Hamilton in the vicinity of Rainy Lake. “Mr. King made the examinations as directed, and in his report shows that the surveys were executed with great care and fidelity, and in strict conformity to laws and instructions” (United States, Congress, House 1881 p.674 p. 974).

1882

In his last annual report, August 29, 1882 Stewart writes very little.

The execution of these surveys was greatly delayed by the extremely bad weather which continued during the last fall and winter, as well as by the dense timber and underbrush which prevails throughout the region surveyed, rendering it necessary to give these deputies more time in which to complete their surveys (United States, Congress, House 1882 p. 426)

Conclusion

When Jacob H. Stewart became surveyor general, a large part of Minnesota had already been surveyed. He carried out his duties with the care and efficiency of his predecessors during a time when the public land survey system in the various states and territories was coming under increasing scrutiny from a federal government that was primarily concerned about the nature and use of the western arid and mountainous parts of the country (United States, Congress, House, 1878).

Bibliography

Gates, Paul W., History of Public Land Law Development (Washington DC, Government Printing Office 1968)
United States, Congress, House, “Surveys of the Territories” H.misc.doc. 5, Serial 1861 (1878).
United States, Congress, House, “Report of the Surveyor General of Minnesota” H.exec.doc.1, Serial 1910 (1879) p.785
United States, Congress, House, “Report of the Surveyor General of Minnesota” H.exec.doc.1, Serial 1959 (1880) p.973
United States, Congress, House, “Report of the Surveyor General of Minnesota” H.exec.doc.1, Serial 2017, (1881) p.674
United States, Congress, House, “Report of the Surveyor General of Minnesota” H.exec.doc. 1, serial 2099 (1882) p.426
White, C. Albert, A History of the Rectangular Survey System (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1982

Qualitative information

New Mexico

Martin Chandler, 1883-1884

Martin Chandler, 1885-1886

John Norrish, 1887-1890

The Public Land Survey in Minnesota, 1891-1908

Introduction

Between 1891, when James Compton replaced John Norrish as surveyor general of Minnesota and 1908, when the office of surveyor general was terminated, deputies continued to survey land in the northern part of the state (Figure 1). Most of the land still unsurveyed was federally owned public land, the so-called public domain, and land within Indian reservations. There was, however, tracts of land that had been omitted as the survey spread across the state, particularly islands.

In their annual reports Compton, and the surveyors general that followed him, Patrick H. Kirwan (1895-1900) and Eli S. Warner (1900-1908), expressed concern about several difficulties they faced. Although their reports only contained tabular statements of the various contracts awarded, either under the annual Congressional appropriations to support surveying the remaining public lands in the state or under specific Congressional appropriations to survey the American Indian reservations, they were concerned about the funds Congress annually appropriated to carry out the necessary fieldwork. But they were even more concerned and critical about the annual appropriations for the office work that had to be completed following the fieldwork. In addition, they and other surveyors general across the nation, were forced to deal with surveys that contained several errors.(1)

The acrimonious debates over privatizing land ownership and over the status of the remaining public lands had reached some sort of national consensus with Congressional action following the report of the Public Land Commission. In 1889 Congress withdrew all of the remaining public lands from private entry. (25 Stat. 854) The following year, Congress established forest reserves in California. (26 Stat. 650) In 1891, Congress repealed the Timber Culture Act of 1873, amended the Desert Land Act of 1877, and, most significantly, authorized the President to create forest reserves. (26 Stat. 1095) Unfortunately, this legislation extended the Timber and Stone Act of 1878 to all states. (2)

From 1891 to 1908 deputies carried out their fieldwork using three different Manuals of Instructions each of which became part of their contacts. The first was issued on January 1, 1890 (White, 1982 172). This Manual, requiring the deputies to use a solar compass for all surveys, updated and revised the Manual of 1881. A second, which eliminated the magnetic needle in the rectangular survey fieldwork, was issued on June 30, 1894. (White, 1982 173) A third, was issued on January 1, 1902. (White, 1982 185).

James Compton (March 20, 1891- November 4, 1895)

In 1891 Compton received $10,000 for all the surveys and resurveys and awarded six contracts to survey the public lands. He also contracted with deputies to survey lands in Indian reservations for $43,000 all to be paid for under special Congressional appropriations for surveying Chippewa Indian lands made January 14, 1889 and August 19, 1890. (U.S. Congress, House, 1891)

In his annual report for 1892 he reports that ninety-three townships had been surveyed during the year, a very dramatic increase in the amount of surveying compared to recent years. Many of these were in the Red Lake, Grand Portage, and Bois Forte Indian reservations. Some of these townships had been completely surveyed, meaning that all the necessary office work had been finished - the deputy’s field notes had been examined, transcripts of the notes made, and the plats drawn. Some, however, still required office work. (U.S. Congress, House, 1892) White describes a survey, which apparently omitted a considerable amount of land, that came to light during the year. (White 1982, 173)

In 1893 the Commissioner of the General Land Office (GLO), Silas W. Lamoreaux, issued a circular stating that deputies could not examine surveys. All such examinations were to be made by a special examiner, the surveyor general himself, or one of his clerks (White, 1982 173).

Congress originally appropriated only $5,500 for the surveys in Minnesota although an additional appropriation of $8,150 was made during the fiscal year July 1, 1893-June 30 1894. Compton, in his annual report, dated July 10, 1894, notes that 49 townships had been surveyed, 34 completely. He warns, however,
The work of preparation of plats and field notes in this office has been greatly delayed during the past year by reason of the inadequate appropriations for salaries of clerks in this office, leaving at this date a large amount of arrears of office work and causing great injustice to deputies who are, in consequence of this delay, obliged to wait from one to two years for their pay, and also to the settlers, who are very anxious to secure title to their lands, and who are constantly writing to this office inquiring when these townships that have been surveyed will be ready for entries to be made (U.S. Congress, House 1894 475)
In legislation enacted August 9, 1894 Congress provided funds to resurvey two counties in Nebraska. (28 Stat. 275) The townships were the first in the nation to be surveyed as what we now call “Independent Resurvey” (White, 1982 173).

Still complaining about insufficient appropriations to complete the office work, Compton notes in his 1895 report that 46 townships were surveyed, 34 completely. (U.S. Congress, House 1895 434) 475) Congress had appropriated $6,865 for surveying public lands. This was supplemented by almost $15,000 set aside to survey Indian reservations.

Patrick H. Kirwan (November 4, 1895 - January 18, 1900)

In his report, July 1, 1896, the new surveyor general Kirwan continues to complain of the inadequacy of the funds for office work. He notes that 36 townships had been surveyed, 25 completely. (U.S. Congress, House, 1896) On October 16, 1896 the Commissioner of the GLO issued a circular titled Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners and Subdivision of Sections, which combined all of the previous circulars on the topic. (White, 1982 185).

On June 4, 1897 Congress enacted a Civil Appropriations Act, also known as the Forest Reserve Act of 1897. (30 Stat. 11) The act authorized the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to carry out the surveys in all forest reserves, surveys that were to include the exterior boundaries of the reserves and the townships inside the boundaries. Two years later, in 1899, Congress restricted the USGS surveys to the forest boundaries, returning the survey of the townships and sections to the GLO. (30 Stat. 1074) In 1905 the USGS surveys were discontinued (White, 1982,184).

On June 29, 1897 the Commissioner of the GLO issued a circular directing “bearing trees at all quarter-section corners would be marked with the section number included, such as ¼ S 16 BT, not just ¼ S BT as in the old practice.” (White, 1982, 185-6) In his report of that year, dated July 7, Kirwan states that 45 townships had been surveyed, 27 completely. He notes, “There are now remaining in this State 70 townships of public land and 37 townships of Indian lands, not including the detached territory lying north of Lake of the Woods”. He writes,
I believe it will be for the best interests of the Government and the State of Minnesota that sufficient appropriations should be made by Congress to survey all of these lands as early as practicable, and that the appropriations for salaries in this office should be increased to a sum sufficient to employ the necessary draughtsmen and clerks to prepare the required plats and transcripts of field notes of the surveys. (U.S. Congress, House, 1897, 388)
The Commissioner of the GLO notes Kirwan’s comments accompanying his estimates for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900.
I have again to repeat that as a result of the timber and iron development in the northern part of the State and the extension of railroad lines into the region where the unsurveyed lands are situate, there is an increasing demand for the extension of the public land surveys to meet the wants of the settlers who are seeking homes in that part of the State.
I am of the opinion that the best interests of the State would be subserved by pushing the unsurveyed lands in Minnesota to an early completion. (U.S. Congress, House, 1898 27)
Kirwan reports 24 townships were surveyed, 24 completely. In addition two island were surveyed under the deposit system (U.S. Congress, House, 1898 414)

Congress appropriated $5,000 for surveying during fiscal year 1899 and Kirwan awarded six contracts. In addition, he awarded seven contracts worth $22,000 for surveying Indian Reservations. In his estimate for the following fiscal year he reiterates his comments of the previous year regarding the lands that should be surveyed (U.S. Congress, House, 1899 28)

Eli S. Warner (January 18, 1900 - February 3, 1908)

In 1900 Warner received $5,000 for surveying activities in Minnesota. In his estimate for the following year he states,
Several new lines of railroads are projected through the northern portion of the State, all of which pass through or in the near vicinity of the townships remaining unsurveyed, thus opening up for settlement large areas of land now unsurveyed. The development of the iron and lumber interests is rapid, and the demand for lands suitable for agricultural purposes is increasing from year to year. Engineers are at work locating a line of railroad from Bemidji on the Mississippi River to Koochiching on the Red Lake River. This road will pass through the unsurveyed region lying on Big and Little Fork rivers, rendering all that region accessible to settlers. Recent explorations show that a large portion of that country is very valuable as agricultural lands. (U.S. Congress, House, 1900 31)
In 1901 Warner awarded four contracts totaling $3,725. He reports only eight townships surveyed and two resurveyed (U.S. Congress, House, 1901 507)

In 1902, the Commissioner of the GLO reports having rejected “five quite extensive contracts for defective and erroneous work found by field examiners” (U.S. Congress, House 1902 262) He notes,
A large amount of the most severe and exhausting labor performed by any of the office examiners has been done in the forest and marshes of northern Minnesota at all seasons of the past fiscal year. The retracement of deputies’ lines in the heavy snow and coldest weather in winter has been found more practicable and endurable by the agents of the Department than to endure the wading and heat and insects of the summer season. (U.S. Congress, House 1902 262)
Congress authorized the Commissioner to spend as much of the $325,000 appropriated for the public land survey “as he might deem necessary for the examination of surveys in the field, in order to test the accuracy of the work of the deputy surveyors, and the examination of surveys heretofore made and reported to be defective or fraudulent”. (U.S. Congress, House 1902 271) The Commissioner reports,
During the fiscal year there were employed 14 examiners of surveys to whom instructions were issued for the inspection of surveys reported by the several surveyors-general as being ready for examination in the field. A portion of these examiners were on active duty during the entire surveying season; other examiners were employed in the field for stated periods, according to the exigencies of the service and conditions of the weather during the inclement season. (U.S. Congress, House 1902 271)
A contract awarded August 18, 1898 to Chas. L. and Nolan M. Chase, for surveying eight townships, was found to contain a number of errors. The Commissioner notes,
This office, aware of the difficulties to be encountered in the execution of surveys in the locality of this contract, was disposed to make due allowance for them and not hold strictly to the requirements of the manual, but the errors were so large and numerous in this case that the work could not be accepted. The deputies were therefore required to correct their survey, subject to another examination (U.S. Congress, House 1902 276)
Another contract, to survey T159NR41W and T160NR41W, was awarded to George A. Ralph on May 25, 1897. The survey of one township was accepted.
The other was suspended for correction of field work. When proper field notes of said corrections were filed a second inspection was made in the spring of 1900, which revealed such inferior and irregular work that be letter of February 5, 1901, this office refuse to accept the survey of the township, and rejected it subject to appeal.
The deputy resisted the rejection by impugning the correctness of the examiner’s work. It being the desire of this office to work no injustice, the regular procedure was waived, and a third inspection was ordered by another examiner, who made a careful retracement of 21 miles of the township.
The work was particularly bad in the matter of the course and alignment of lines. The courses from corner to corner on 25 half miles retraced differed from those given in the field notes by amounts of error ranging from half a degree to over 3 degrees, showing that a retracement by a correct surveyor at any future date would bring him to a point 2, 5, or in some cases 10 rods from the actual corner at the end of half a mile.
The survey was again rejected on January 27, 1902, and no appeal has been filed. ((U.S. Congress, House 1902 279)
Similarly, contract No. 89 awarded to Bernard Keegan May 27, 1898, and contract No. 91 awarded also to Keegan were both rejected. Of the latter survey, the examiner reported,
The chaining is very erroneous; corners are not correctly placed; the corners too far out of limits; the blazed lines too crooked; the topography wrong as shown by the deputy’s plat; Birch Lake not in its correct position, and the meanders entirely wrong; plat showing water where there is land. The errors across the lake I cannot account for, except the deputy was a poor guesser . I found that a most fraudulent survey has been made, with no pretense of keeping near the requirements of the manual or instructions. (U.S. Congress, House 1902 279)
In all three cases in which the surveys were rejected, the Commissioner reports,
(T)he sureties on the bonds have been called on to provide for correct fulfillment of the contracts by acceptable and competent compass men, to destroy the bad work and make new surveys. (U.S. Congress, House 1902 279)
On March 3, 1903 Congress appropriated $400,000 for the public land surveys throughout the nation. (32 Stat. 1116) $80,000 was set aside for examinations. Warner received $10,000 for the surveys in Minnesota in order to expedite closing the district. (U.S. Congress, House 1903 300) In his annual report for that year he presents the usual tabular statements. He notes that five entire and five fractional townships, surveyed under contracts he had made during the year and to be paid for under the appropriations for fiscal year 1903 (July 1, 1902-June 30, 1903), had been completely surveyed. As he reports, “the field notes … have been examined during the year, and the plats and transcripts of the field notes made” (U.S. Congress, House, 1902-3 622). In addition, three entire and four fractional townships had been surveyed and the field notes returned but the office works had not been completed. One township, payable out of the $10,000, had been resurveyed under special instructions,. Eleven entire and fractional townships in the Minnesota Chippewa Reservation, payable from an appropriation of $50,000 under an act passed by Congress July 1, 1898, had been completely surveyed and two townships had been resurveyed under special instructions. He reports, “There have been prepared during the year 4 contracts with full special instructions, in quadruplicate, with the deputy surveyors for the survey of 8 townships and 1 fractional townships (sic) of the public land, with diagrams and field notes of exterior lines, for the use of deputy surveyors” (U.S. Congress, House, 1902-3 622). He also noted he had prepared eight special instructions for surveying islands and two special instructions for surveying reservation lands. Finally, he noted preparing six special instructions to compassmen to correct and complete erroneous surveys in thirteen townships.

Warner’s report, dated July 7, 1904 gives the usual tabular information. (U.S. Congress, House, 1904 691) In 1905, the Commissioner of the GLO writes, “As the apportionment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1906, will probably complete the surveys, the surveyor general submits no estimate for public surveys for the year ending June 30, 1907. He anticipates that the office work on surveying can be completed during the fiscal year 1907, and the office be discontinued at the close of the fiscal year”. (U.S. Congress, House, 1905 315)

In his 1906 report of the Commissioner of the GLO notes,
The completion of the surveys of the public lands is, of course, under the present system, entirely dependent upon the development and settlement of the country and the appropriations by Congress. It is believed to be the wisest plan to await demands from settlers and apportion the appropriation in accordance therewith rather than attempt a systematic survey of the entire public domain far in advance of settlement (U.S. Congress, House, 1906 348).
There were no contracts let during the year although there were several outstanding from previous years.

In 1907 Warner let 4 contracts and 2 small island surveys. He anticipates closing the office early in 1908, a little later than he earlier though because of delayed field and office work (U.S. Congress, House, 1907 115).

On February 26, 1907, in response to a Senate resolution, the Department of the Interior published its Rules and Regulations. (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1907) This document possesses three items of interest to Minnesota surveyors. First, dated March 18, 1896, is a brief synopsis of the regulations adopted by the Department of the Interior under the Swamp Land Laws and a list of the administrative decisions made by the Secretary of the Interior under those regulations. Second, dated February 14, 1899, are regulations to facilitate adjusting the conflicting claims to lands within the limits of the grant to Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Finally, dated March 14, 1901, are regulations concerning lost and obliterated corners and subdividing sections

On May 27, 1908 Congress appropriated money to purchase iron post to be used as monuments. (35 Stat. 317) $7,700 was set aside “to enable the Secretary of the Interior to complete the unfinished drafting and field-note writing pertaining to the surveys in the States of Minnesota, North Dakota, and Florida caused by the discontinuance of the offices of the surveyors general in those States” (35 Stat. 317). On February 26, of the previous year, although Congress enacted legislation appropriating money to continue the public land survey in Minnesota, a marginal note stated “Minnesota Termination” (34 Stat. 980)These two pieces of legislation, between them abolishing the surveyor general’s office of Minnesota, ended the sixty-year old public land survey in the state.

Conclusion

On April 25, 1907 the Minnesota legislature established the position of clerk of government surveys in the office of Secretary of State. (Laws, 1907 ch. 416) The individual, who would be appointed by the secretary of state, was to receive the “records and archives of the office of United States surveyor general for the State of Minnesota.” Sometime in 1908 the records of the public land survey in Minnesota, 1847-1907, comprising the correspondence between the surveyor general and others having business with him, the township plats drawn by the draftsmen in the surveyors general office, and the transcribed copies of the deputy surveyors’ field notes, were transferred to the state of Minnesota. They are now housed in the Minnesota History Center.

Footnotes.

(1) The surveyors general had always been responsible for examining and approving the field notes before recommending to the Commissioner of the General Land Office that the deputy be paid. When clerks in the surveyors general office discovered field notes that did not conform to the instructions given to the deputy or inaccuracies in the mathematics, or when individual citizens complained that the lines and monuments on the ground were misaligned or misplaced, an examiner retraced the deputies’ lines in the field. Clearly, not all corners in townships and not all miles of lines were actually inspected by examiners in the field. Only the most egregious errors discovered by examiners would be reported in the annual reports of the surveyors general. At this time, surveying throughout the nation, and the entire land alienation process in which the federal government disposed of their landholdings, was coming under criticism. Minnesota suffered through this intense scrutiny. There were, in fact, very few surveys, perhaps a couple of dozen, that were entirely rejected.

(2) The Timber and Stone Act was the last land law that enabled individuals and companies to acquire large acreages of land in Minnesota and elsewhere, as the title implied, mostly valuable for timber (Curry-Roper, 1985)

Bibliography

Curry-Roper, Janel Marie, A Historical Geography of Land Ownership in Minnesota: The Influence of the Timber and Stone Act. Unpub. Ph.D. University of Minnesota, 1985.

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior. House executive document 1, 1891, Serial 2933

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1892. Serial 3087

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 193. Serial 3209

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1894. Serial 3305

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1895. Serial 3381

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1896. Serial 3481

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1,1897. Serial 3640

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1898. Serial 3756

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1899. Serial 3914

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1900. Serial 4100

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1901. Serial 4289

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1902. Serial 4457

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1903. Serial 4644

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1904. Serial 4797

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1905. Serial 4958

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1906. Serial 5117

U.S. Congress, Senate, Rules and Regulations governing the Department of the Interior in its various branches, Senate document 306 part 3, 1907. Serial 5087

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1907. Serial 5291

U.S. Congress, House, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, House executive document 1, 1908. Serial

White, C. Albert, A History of the Rectangular Survey (Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1982)

A context for the public land survey

Introduction

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries individuals migrated into an uninhabited continental interior in response to a federal policy aimed at creating and promoting private landownership. Such a policy rested on two fundamental features, one, the spread of a land alienation process in which the federal government created landowners by conveying titles to individuals, corporations, and states and, two, the spread of law which created the conditions necessary for landownership to exist.

The land alienation process, in reality public land policy, comprised several steps in which the federal acquired title to land and then conveyed it. Congress first extinguished the occupancy and use rights, the “aboriginal title”, possessed by the American Indian bands in a negotiated treaty. For the most part, treaties were the means by which the federal government created clear title and many, in fact, were negotiated solely for the purpose of acquiring lands demanded by non Indians. Having acquired the necessary title, Congress authorized the survey of the ceded lands and then advertised them for sale. All lands offered at a two-week public auction at which the federal government conveyed title to land to individuals, corporations, and governments that qualified to become landowners. Following the public auction, all of the land that had been offered for sale and had not been sold was open to what was known as private entry. The rectangular public land survey, then, was merely one step in a land alienation process through which the federal government created private landownership across the United States.

The federal statutes regulating the land alienation process incompletely characterized the nature of private landownership. They only defined what land was available for ownership, who could acquire title, and how title could be acquired. But, owning land involved more than individuals acquiring title from the federal government. All such title transfers took place within an existing legal framework that defined and guaranteed the rights of those acquiring land. When the federal government created landownership by conveying title to land, many of the characteristics of landownership were already defined by existing federal case law and existing federal statutory law extended as a matter of course when the United States acquired jurisdiction from foreign governments. This law described what kind of title the first landowners acquired, what real property interests they possessed, how these rights were guaranteed and protected, and how they could convey their titles and interests.

Early in the nation’s history, the federal government realized firstly, that individuals would only acquire title if their rights were guaranteed and protected in the same way that the rights of those possessing title in the original states were guaranteed and protected, and secondly, the spread of existing federal law was not entirely sufficient to define the nature of landownership being created across the vast spaces that comprised the United States. Thus, the federal government established a process in which new governments would be created in areas where there was none, governments that would have the authority to create new case and statutory law and to provide the guarantees and protections for landowners and an infrastructure that supported and guaranteed private landownership. The spread of subnational and local governments, in essence recreating the law and government that already existed in the original states, across an uninhabited and ungoverned area was as vital to the colonization of the United States as was the land alienation process.

The public land survey in any part of the United States, then, has two intimately related contexts. One context comprises the evolution and spread of law and government in the area that would eventually become a particular state. The second comprises the evolution and spread of the administrative machinery involved in the land alienation process in that same area. Governments of all types spread by necessity sometimes preceding, and sometimes following, the migration of individuals into particular areas. Not unusually, they spread as settlers demanded the benefits offered by governments, especially local governments. (Figure 1)

The Spread of Federal Jurisdiction

In 1783, the United States, then a Confederation of Colonies, acquired jurisdiction over an area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean westwards to the Mississippi River and from an indistinct boundary with British North America to the northern limit of the Spanish possessions in Florida. (Figure 2) Over half of this area, 233 million acres in all, lay outside the boundaries of the 13 original states but were claimed by several of them, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, under their colonial charters. Even before the Revolution had ended the question of what to do with these “western lands” was the subject of intense debate. Between 1761 and 1802 each state surrendered any claim of jurisdiction over these extra-territorial areas to the national government. As a result, the Continental Congress was faced with two related necessities, to attract individuals to settle in the area and to provide some sort of organized government for those that did so.

The adoption of a Federal Constitution in September 1787, and its ratification by 1790, continued the federal government’s authority over the lands ceded by the various states. Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution stated, “The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory and other property belonging to the United States” and the authority to make, “all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the various enumerated powers. The federal government thus possessed sole power over land acquired by the United States from foreign nations. This power enabled the government to continue existing legislation that effectively promoted private ownership of the western lands, to enact legislation that would promote private ownership to all land, and to provide a government for those who became landowners and settled on the land.

Before the Constitution was adopted, however, Two statutes enacted by the Continental Congress, the Land Ordinance (1785) and the Northwest Ordinance (1787) were aimed at promoting the immigration of individuals into the area north and west of the Ohio River and providing these immigrants with some form of government.

Land Ordinance of 1785

Legislation permitting individuals to become landowners was key to attracting immigrants to the western lands. In 1785, the Continental Congress enacted a land ordinance that defined two key steps in the process of privatizing the title to land ceded by the British beyond the boundaries of the original states. Firstly, the land would be subdivided into units suitable for private ownership by a system of monuments and lines run by surveyors. Secondly, titles to these land units would be sold to individuals and companies. This act, designed to place land into the hands of anyone who would settle on the land, was merely the first of approximately 3500 statutes through which the federal government conveyed title to 11/2 billion acres of land to individuals who met specific requirements, to corporations, most of which were engaged in providing particular services, especially transportation, and to state governments. Quite simply, the willingness of successive federal governments to provide land and to define the characteristics of the first owners prompted individuals to migrate.

The Northwest Ordinance

The Land Ordinance established a mechanism for creating landowners, a particular class of individuals, by conveying title to particular parcels of land. It was silent about those legal characteristics of the landowners already fixed in 1785. Some of the characteristics, particularly those regarding the nature of real property rights, were defined by the common law of the United States, the longstanding rules regarding landownership that had originated in Britain and altered through American colonial experiences. Other legal characteristics, such as what kind of title a landowner would possess, how title could be held and conveyed, were defined, partly by the common law and partly by the statutory law of the original states. Still others, the recording requirements that provided both a public record and evidence of those titles were defined by the statutory law of particular states.

The Northwest Ordinance promoted the idea of landownership, guaranteeing and protecting the rights of individuals who owned land, and initiated the principle that subnational units of government, states would evolve as the number of landowners in a particular area increased. Equally important, however, was the principle that jurisdiction would be shared between the federal government and these new governments. The spread of the common law and the statutory law of the United States and the evolution of these subnational governments resulted in the spread of the necessary legal framework for landowners. The law defined and guaranteed many of the characteristics of the first landowners and the characteristics of all subsequent landowners.

The Ordinance, enacted in 1787 by a Continental Congress meeting in New York at the same time a Constitutional Convention was meeting in Philadelphia, extended the common law of the United States over the western lands and established the manner in which this vast area would be governed. In the Ordinance Congress specifically repealed feudalism and established some of the prominent features of landownership, allowing individuals to convey land by executing and delivering a deed, for example. It also provided that the western lands should be settled in a systematic manner and governed by sovereign governments, similar to those already in existence. This Ordinance became accepted as the governing statute for all territory subsequently acquired from foreign nations by the United States. Moreover, it established the goal of territorial expansion and a long-lasting pattern of territorial political development.

In the Ordinance Congress created a territorial government coextensive with the western lands, the Northwest Territory. This government was to be temporary and limited in terms of powers and would eventually become divided into six that were similar in form and powers to the thirteen states already in existence. In addition to establishing a government for an area without government or landowners, Congress established a mechanism for ensuring that state governments would evolve, one that proved remarkably durable, providing a blueprint for the evolution and spread of government throughout the United States. Territorial governments, with limited powers, would serve an apprenticeship period with the national government and finally become states, joining the Union on an equal footing with the other states. The Ordinance linked the apprenticeship period to the numbers and the demands of resident landowners living in a particular area. Whenever the population in these areas reached 60,000, in some cases earlier, the residents of the area “shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government” and were to be admitted into the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”

Under the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance, as individuals migrated westwards, the Northwest Territory and the other areas that became part of the United States, was repeatedly divided into territorial and state governments. (Figure 2) Thus Minnesota Territory, established in 1849, was merely part of a process in which eighteen other territories, all of which became states, had already been created. As Anderson noted, at that time “(t)he process of clipping states out of the Old Northwest Territory was at last ended. Ohio, Indian, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin – five states – had been successively delimited upon the map and introduced to an equal station with the original states in the Union.” (Anderson, 1921 21) The Louisiana Purchase had undergone similar territorial subdivision.

The basic process in creating states was similar. “(T)he old territory divided, like an amoeba, into two, and the old laws of the original territory now governed in both parts. Without particular thought or debate, traditional statutes were handed on to new jurisdictions. The statute of fraud and the statute of limitations traveled cross-country without major change.” (Friedman, 1973 147) And so, “Ohio kept the statutes of Northwest Territory, even after statehood. The territorial laws were handed on to Indian Territory (1800); Indiana passed them to Michigan and Illinois territories (1809); Michigan Territory was the source of the earliest laws of Wisconsin Territory (1936) which in turn gave them to Iowa (1838) and Minnesota (1849)” (Friedman, 1973 147)

Land Alienation and Government

Individuals migrated into area in which the federal government was offering land for sale, areas in which aboriginal title had been ceded by American-Indian tribes, areas which had been surveyed and which possessed at least a rudimentary form of government. Becoming landowners, these individuals demanded more local and more organized government to provide more security for their real property rights. In response, the federal government created two new governments, a new state and a new territory. Each new state was carved from an existing territory. Whenever a new state came into existence so did a new territory. Territories and states play key roles in landownership. They, rather than the federal government, possess the power to define and guarantee the rights of landowners created by federal legislation. Moreover, the territories and states were the governments vested with the authority to create local units of governments, in particular counties which have played an important role in record-keeping.

Conclusion

The spread of the public land survey and landownership was coincidental with the spread of law and order that defined and guaranteed many of the legal characteristics of the first landowners. The survey was part of federal policy predicated on the idea of colonizing the continental interior with private landowners, a policy that required the spread of law to create landowners and the spread of law to subsidize and protect such individuals. Deputy surveyors established the spatial characteristics of the first landownership parcels after the federal government had extinguished the occupancy and use rights of American Indian bands and before the government attempted to transfer ownership of these parcels.

In August 1847 the first deputy surveyors crossed the St. Croix River, then in St. Croix County, Wisconsin Territory, and started to subdivide lands between the St. Croix and the Mississippi, lands that had been ceded by the Ojibwe and Dakota in 1837. In August 1848, the federal government offered some of these lands at a public auction at the land district office in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin Territory. At this auction and subsequently, individuals, some of whom had settled on the land before it was surveyed and some of whom migrated to the area in search of land to own, acquired title from the federal government. On March 3, 1849 Congress established Minnesota Territory, defining the boundaries of a temporary government and extending both federal law and the law of the former Territory of Wisconsin, from which the new government was derived, over the area. This legislation provided the landowners with the first formal government and the guarantees and protections they needed for their real property rights. As individuals came to the new Territory in search of land they demanded additional cessions from American Indian bands and more surveyed lands. As individuals came to the new Territory in search of land they also demanded changes in law and government to protect and subsidize their real property rights they had acquired. This is how Minnesota and many other states were colonized and this, then, is the context of the public land survey. As White wrote, “It wasn’t sufficient to pass a law for the surveying and sale of land without providing for government in the territory being settled” (White, 1982 15).

Bibliography

Anderson, William, A History of the Constitution of Minnesota. (Research Publications of the University of Minnesota, Studies in the Social Sciences, Number 15 1921)

Friedman, Lawrence M., A History of American Law. (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1973)

White, C. Albert, A History of the Rectangular Survey System. (Washington D.C. Government Printing Office, 1982)